A federal appeals court has upheld the dismissal of a criminal charge against a Wisconsin man for privately possessing AI-generated images depicting the sexual abuse of fictional children. The ruling, which turns on narrow First Amendment grounds, creates a concrete legal boundary for prosecutors pursuing cases involving synthetic child sexual abuse material (CSAM) that does not depict an actual, identifiable minor.
The charge and the constitutional challenge
Steven Anderegg was charged under a federal statute that criminalizes the possession of obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children. The images at the center of the case were not photographs of real children. They were generated by artificial intelligence and depicted entirely fictional minors. Anderegg possessed the images in his home and did not distribute them.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit found that existing Supreme Court precedent, specifically Stanley v. Georgia, protects the private possession of obscene material in the home. The government argued that the state's interest in protecting children from abuse justified the restriction. The court disagreed, drawing a sharp line between material that involves real victims and purely synthetic creations.
Where the court drew the line
The panel's decision does not give blanket protection to all AI-generated CSAM. The court emphasized that its holding applies only to the private possession of obscene material depicting fictional children. Charges related to the production, distribution, or sale of such material remain legally distinct. So do charges involving images that depict real, identifiable children, even if those images are generated or altered by AI.
The ruling also leaves untouched federal prohibitions on so-called "morphed" images that use a real child's likeness. "The government's interest in protecting children from sexual exploitation is compelling," the court said, but that interest does not extend to punishing the private possession of material that harms no actual child in its creation.
Prosecutors face a shifting landscape
The decision highlights a growing tension between rapidly advancing generative AI tools and criminal statutes written before those tools existed. Federal prosecutors have increasingly pursued AI-generated CSAM cases, but the legal framework remains unsettled. Several circuits have yet to rule on the constitutionality of applying existing child pornography statutes to wholly synthetic images.
Anderegg still faces separate federal charges. The appeals court's ruling addressed only the single count of private possession. Those additional charges, which the court did not detail in its published order, remain pending.
Why this matters for legal professionals
For prosecutors, the ruling narrows the path for charging private possession of AI-generated obscene material under current federal law. Cases will need to show distribution, production, or a link to an actual minor to survive First Amendment scrutiny. Defense attorneys, meanwhile, gain a direct appellate precedent to challenge possession charges where the images are purely synthetic and kept in the home. The decision also signals that legislators, not courts, may need to craft new statutes specifically tailored to AI-generated child sexual abuse material if they want to regulate private possession.
Your membership also unlocks:
