United States v. Anderegg 2026

[admin]

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

• 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.
  

Procedural History

• 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. 
  

Key Legal Holdings
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. 
  

2. Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002) Governs Virtual CSAM
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.
  

3. § 1466A(b)(1) Unconstitutional As Applied
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. 
  

Significance

• 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. 
  

Summary
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

[admin]

The government can't come into your house and tell you what you can and cannot watch, read or look at in the privacy of your home. it doesn't matter if its obscene or non-obscene. This is from Stanley v Georgia (1969) but dates even farther back to 1600's

1. The Pre-Constitutional Roots of the Home Sanctuary
The principle behind Stanley stretches back centuries before 1969. The Framers drafted the Fourth Amendment specifically to codify ancient English Common Law protections against the British Crown's tyrannical search practices.

Writs of Assistance: Prior to the American Revolution, British customs officials used broad, general search warrants called "Writs of Assistance." These allowed soldiers to break into private homes, warehouses, and papers at any time without specific evidence, looking for smuggled goods or seditious political pamphlets.

Semayne’s Case (1604): This famous English ruling established the foundational legal maxim: "The house of every one is to him as his castle and fortress."

William Pitt’s 1763 Address: As British Statesman William Pitt famously told Parliament: "The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail... the wind may blow through it... but the King of England cannot enter; all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement!"

Stanley v. Georgia didn't invent the home sanctuary; it simply applied this 400-year-old Anglo-American rule to modern media on a citizen's private property.

I am glad the Appeals court ruled in their favor, and it would be bad AND DANGEROUS if the Supreme Court overturns Stanley v Georgia. this would allow the government to do what England did with its writs of assistance and be allowed to search people's homes at any time.