Jump to content

United States v Anderegg

From AI Law Wiki

AI-generated text. This page was generated using artificial intelligence.

Case Information
Case name United States v. Anderegg[1]
Court U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; appeal from the Western District of Wisconsin[1]
Docket Seventh Circuit 25-1354; district court 3:24-cr-0050[1]
Filed 2024 district-court prosecution; exact filing date not established from the opinion.[1]
Judge(s) Seventh Circuit panel: John Z. Lee, Doris L. Pryor and Joshua P. Kolar; district judge: James D. Peterson.[1]
Prosecution United States (prosecution and appellant)[1]
Defendant Steven Anderegg (defendant and appellee)[1]
Case type Federal criminal prosecution involving AI-generated virtual child sexual abuse material and a First Amendment challenge[1]
Claims / issues Whether 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(b)(1) could constitutionally punish the alleged in-home possession of obscene virtual depictions not involving actual children.[1]
Status August 25, 2026: Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal of the possession count as applied to Anderegg. Production, distribution and transfer counts remained pending after the district court denied dismissal of those counts.[1]

United States v. Anderegg concerns federal criminal charges arising from alleged AI-generated virtual child sexual abuse material. On August 25, 2026, the Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal of one possession count under 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(b)(1) as applied to the defendant's alleged in-home possession. Other charges for alleged production, distribution and transfer to a minor remained in the prosecution.[1]

Background and opinion

Federal prosecutors alleged that Anderegg used Stable Diffusion to create realistic sexual depictions of children who did not correspond to actual children. The indictment charged production, distribution, transfer to a minor and possession. The district court dismissed only the possession count, and the government appealed that ruling.[1]

The Seventh Circuit held that Supreme Court decisions on in-home possession of obscenity and virtual depictions controlled the possession charge on the facts alleged. It described the difficulty of applying those precedents to modern image-generation technology but said it could not redraw the Supreme Court's line. The opinion addressed a federal statute and this as-applied challenge; it did not adjudicate Wisconsin's separate state law or the remaining federal counts.[1]

Later district-court disagreement

On October 21, 2026, Judge Philip A. Brimmer in United States v Anderhub declined to follow the Seventh Circuit’s reasoning about § 1466A(d)(4)’s interstate-commerce requirement. He denied a motion to dismiss Count Six involving allegedly AI-generated depictions of wholly fictional children, distinguishing private possession under Stanley from the commerce-linked conduct charged. That district-court order does not alter the Seventh Circuit’s decision or determine Anderhub’s guilt.[2]

References

  1. ↑ 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.10 1.11 1.12 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, United States v. Anderegg, No. 25-1354, opinion, August 25, 2026.
  2. ↑ United States v. Anderhub, No. 1:25-cr-00347-PAB (D. Colo.), ECF No. 72, order denying motion to dismiss Count Six, October 21, 2026, pp. 1–9.
Retrieved from "https://ailawwiki.com/index.php?title=United_States_v_Anderegg&oldid=7060"