09-07-2026, 04:27 PM
United States v. Anderegg (2026) 7th Circuit Appeals court ruled in favor of Anderegg!!!
United States v. Anderegg (25‑1354, decided August 25, 2026) is a Seventh Circuit decision holding that 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(b)(1) is unconstitutional as applied to in‑home possession of obscene, AI‑generated virtual child sexual abuse material (CSAM) that does not depict real children.
Case Overview
1. Stanley v. Georgia (1969) Controls In‑Home Possession
The court held that Stanley v. Georgia protects the right to possess obscene material in the home, and this protection applies even when the obscenity involves virtual minors.
The Supreme Court has already rejected the government’s arguments for banning possession of virtual CSAM (e.g., grooming risks, enforcement difficulty, market elimination).
The statute cannot constitutionally criminalize in‑home possession of obscene virtual CSAM that does not depict actual minors.
United States v. Anderegg clarifies that in‑home possession of obscene, AI‑generated virtual CSAM is protected under the First Amendment, because it does not involve real children and falls squarely within the privacy protections recognized in Stanley v. Georgia.
UNITED STATES v. ANDEREGG (2026) | FindLaw
United States v. Anderegg (25‑1354, decided August 25, 2026) is a Seventh Circuit decision holding that 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(b)(1) is unconstitutional as applied to in‑home possession of obscene, AI‑generated virtual child sexual abuse material (CSAM) that does not depict real children.
Case Overview
- Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
- Docket: 25‑1354
- Decision Date: August 25, 2026
- Defendant: Steven Anderegg
- Charges: Producing, distributing, transferring, and possessing AI‑generated images depicting minors in sexually explicit conduct. The images were created using Stable Diffusion and involved no real children.
- The district court dismissed the possession count under 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(b)(1), holding the statute unconstitutional as applied because the images were virtual and possessed in the home.
- The government filed an interlocutory appeal.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal.
1. Stanley v. Georgia (1969) Controls In‑Home Possession
The court held that Stanley v. Georgia protects the right to possess obscene material in the home, and this protection applies even when the obscenity involves virtual minors.
- Stanley’s rule is location‑based, not content‑based.
- It is not limited to adult obscenity.
The Supreme Court has already rejected the government’s arguments for banning possession of virtual CSAM (e.g., grooming risks, enforcement difficulty, market elimination).
- Because no real children are depicted, the government’s interests under Ferber and Osborne do not apply.
The statute cannot constitutionally criminalize in‑home possession of obscene virtual CSAM that does not depict actual minors.
- The interstate‑commerce element of § 1466A(d)(4) is merely jurisdictional and does not remove the case from Stanley’s protection.
- This is the first federal appellate decision addressing AI‑generated CSAM under § 1466A.
- It confirms that virtual CSAM—no matter how realistic—cannot be treated like actual CSAM for possession‑based charges when kept in the home.
- The ruling is highly consequential for prosecutions involving generative AI imagery.
United States v. Anderegg clarifies that in‑home possession of obscene, AI‑generated virtual CSAM is protected under the First Amendment, because it does not involve real children and falls squarely within the privacy protections recognized in Stanley v. Georgia.
UNITED STATES v. ANDEREGG (2026) | FindLaw