EnglishEspañol

Federal Sexting Laws: Legal Consequences and Penalties

Independently fact-checked Editor-reviewed Law current as of August 20, 2026By Recording Law Editorial TeamPublished September 18, 2021Reviewed August 20, 202613 min read

Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 20, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 20, 2026. · 2 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

Federal Sexting Laws: Legal Consequences and Penalties

Key Takeaways

1Federal law treats sexting involving minors as child pornography under 18 U.S.C. 2251 and 2252A, with no exception for teens.
2Production carries a 15-year mandatory minimum, while distribution and receipt each carry a 5-year mandatory minimum and up to 20 years.
3Because nearly all internet and cell-phone transmissions cross state lines, federal jurisdiction can reach almost any sexting case in the country.
4A minor's consent and the offender's belief that the subject was 18 are generally irrelevant to these charges.
5Production of child pornography is a Tier III offense under SORNA, triggering lifetime sex offender registration.
6The 2025 TAKE IT DOWN Act added federal criminal penalties and a 48-hour platform takedown duty for nonconsensual intimate images, including realistic AI-generated deepfakes. It created no civil action of its own. A separate, earlier civil action, 15 U.S.C. Section 6851 (2022), lets victims sue for actual damages or statutory damages up to $150,000 per violation over real nonconsensual intimate images; whether it also reaches AI-generated forgeries is legally unsettled.

Federal law treats sexting involving minors as child pornography under and 2252A, with no teen exception. Production carries a 15-year mandatory minimum; distribution and receipt carry 5 years. Because virtually all internet and cell-phone transmissions cross state lines, federal jurisdiction applies to nearly every sexting case in the United States, regardless of what state law says.

Federal vs. State Jurisdiction

A common misconception is that federal law only applies to massive criminal enterprises or international smuggling rings. In reality, federal prosecutors have jurisdiction over any transmission of images that crosses state lines or uses "instrumentalities of interstate commerce."

Federal pen resting on an open legal statute book

The "Interstate Nexus" Explained

The Constitution's Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. In the digital age, this power is incredibly broad. Courts have consistently ruled that the internet is an instrumentality of interstate commerce. This means that virtually any digital transmission involves the federal government's jurisdiction.

Sending a photo via the internet: Apps like Snapchat, Instagram, and iMessage route data through servers that are often located in different states (e.g., Virginia, California, Oregon). Even if the sender and receiver are sitting on the same couch in Ohio, the data likely traveled to a server in another state and back. This "interstate travel" satisfies the federal jurisdictional requirement.
Using a cell phone network: Cellular networks are part of the national telecommunications infrastructure, which is a facility of interstate commerce.
Cloud Storage: Saving a photo to a cloud server (iCloud, Google Photos, Dropbox) inevitably involves interstate data transfer.

Because of this, federal prosecutors technically have the authority to charge virtually any sexting case in America. However, in practice, they exercise "prosecutorial discretion." They typically reserve federal resources for cases involving adults preying on minors, large-scale distributors, financial sextortion schemes, or cases where local state laws are insufficient to address the severity of the conduct.

The Core Statutes ("The Big Three")

Federal sexting prosecutions primarily rely on Chapter 110 of Title 18 of the United States Code. These are not "sexting" laws; they are child sexual abuse material (CSAM) laws. The federal code uses the term "child pornography," but advocates and modern statutes increasingly refer to it as CSAM to reflect the non-consensual nature of the abuse.

1. Production (18 U.S.C. § 2251)

This is the most severe charge in the federal arsenal for these offenses. It applies to anyone who "employs, uses, persuades, induces, entices, or coerces" a minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of creating a visual depiction.

The Trap: In a teen dating scenario, if an 18-year-old boyfriend asks his 17-year-old girlfriend to "send a pic," and she complies, he has technically "induced" the production of child pornography. The law does not require force or threats; mere persuasion or request is enough to satisfy the element of "inducement."

Penalty: The mandatory minimum sentence for this offense is 15 years in federal prison. This is not a guideline; it is a statutory floor. A judge cannot sentence a defendant to less than 15 years unless the defendant provides "substantial assistance" to the government (i.e., snitching) and the prosecutor files a specific motion.

2. Distribution and Receipt (18 U.S.C. § 2252A)

This statute covers the sending, receiving, or sharing of explicit images. It is the catch-all for most sexting and file-sharing cases.

Receipt: Intentionally receiving images. This includes downloading them from a website, saving them from a text message, or accepting a file transfer.
Distribution: Forwarding an image, posting it on social media, or making it available on a peer-to-peer network. In federal court, "distribution" does not require money to change hands. Simply emailing a photo to a friend constitutes distribution.

Penalty: A mandatory minimum of 5 years in prison, with a maximum of 20 years. If the defendant has a prior conviction, the mandatory minimum jumps to 15 years.

3. Possession (18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B))

Mere possession involves knowingly viewing or accessing images with the intent to view them. This is distinct from "receipt" because it does not require the government to prove that the defendant actively solicited or accepted the specific file, only that they possessed it.

Penalty: Possession carries a maximum of 10 years in prison (or 20 with a prior conviction). Unlike production and distribution, simple possession does not always carry a mandatory minimum for first-time offenders, though sentencing guidelines often recommend prison time regardless.

The Myth of the "Teen Exception"

One of the most dangerous misunderstandings about federal law is the belief that "Romeo and Juliet" scenarios are legal. They are not.

State laws often try to mitigate the damage of sexting charges for minors. For example, Texas has a specific "teen sexting" statute that makes it a Class C misdemeanor (like a traffic ticket) for minors to share images with other minors. California and Florida have similar diversionary schemes.

Federal law has none of this.

Under Title 18, the age of the offender does not change the classification of the crime. If a 16-year-old sends a nude photo to another 16-year-old via the internet:

Production: The sender "produced" the image.
Distribution: The sender "distributed" the image.
Receipt: The receiver "received" the image.

Legally, both teens have committed federal felonies. While the Department of Justice (DOJ) generally follows internal policies that deprioritize the prosecution of minors for consensual sexting, relying instead on state prosecutors, the potential for federal prosecution exists. This risk becomes acute if the sexting turns into "revenge porn," harassment, or bullying, which might compel federal agents to step in.

Understanding Federal Sentencing Guidelines (§2G2.2)

Even beyond the mandatory minimums, the United States Sentencing Guidelines (USSG) play a massive role in determining how long a person stays in prison. For child pornography offenses, the relevant guideline is §2G2.2.

This guideline is notorious among defense attorneys for producing "astronomical" recommended sentences that often exceed the statutory maximums (requiring them to be capped at the max). The system works on a "points" basis. A defendant starts with a Base Offense Level and adds points for specific characteristics of the crime. The higher the level, the longer the recommended sentence.

The "Enhancement" Stack

Almost every sexting or CSAM case will trigger multiple "enhancements" that drive up the sentence score:

Base Offense Level: 22 (approx. 41-51 months for a clean record).
Use of a Computer (+2 levels): Since almost all sexting involves a computer or smartphone, this is automatic.
Material Involving a Prepubescent Minor (+2 levels): If the minor depicted is under 12.
Distribution for Pecuniary Gain (+5 levels, or more based on retail value): If images were sold for profit.
Ordinary/Other Distribution (+2 levels): Applies to typical non-commercial distribution, such as forwarding or posting images without payment, which is the category that fits most sexting and peer-to-peer file-sharing cases.
Engaging in a Pattern of Activity (+5 levels): This is often applied if there are multiple images or multiple conversations over time.

The "Number of Images" Table

The guidelines also add points based on the number of images possessed or distributed. In the digital age, where a single folder can contain thousands of thumbnails or cache files, these numbers add up fast:

10 to 149 images: +2 levels
150 to 299 images: +3 levels
300 to 599 images: +4 levels
600 or more images: +5 levels

Why this matters: A "Level 30" offense (which is easily reached with just a computer, a few hundred images, and a pattern of activity) recommends a sentence of 97 to 121 months (8-10 years) for a first-time offender. This mechanical calculation often leads to first-time non-violent offenders receiving sentences longer than those given for manslaughter or drug trafficking.

Sextortion and Coercion

A major focus of federal law enforcement in 2025 and 2026 is "sextortion",the practice of threatening to release intimate images to coerce a victim into sending more images, paying money, or performing sexual acts. The FBI has flagged this as one of the fastest-growing crimes against children.

The Federal Statutes for Sextortion

Prosecutors use a combination of statutes to hammer sextortionists:

1. Interstate Threats (18 U.S.C. § 875(d))

Transmitting a threat in interstate commerce to injure the property or reputation of another person is a felony. Example: "Send me $500 or I'll post your nudes on Instagram." This carries up to 2 years in prison, but is often just the "opener" charge.

2. Cyberstalking (18 U.S.C. § 2261A)

This statute criminalizes using electronic communications to harass or intimidate a person, causing them substantial emotional distress. If the defendant's conduct causes the victim to fear for their safety or suffer substantial emotional distress, this is a 5-year felony. If the stalking results in the death of the victim (e.g., suicide), the penalty can be life in prison.

The "Sextortion" Cycle

In a typical federal case, an adult poses as a teen online, establishes a relationship, and gets one photo. They then flip the script, demanding more photos or money, threatening to ruin the victim's life by sending the photo to friends and family. Because this involves "production" (inducing the victim to create new images), the 15-year mandatory minimum under § 2251 often applies to every single new photo generated.

How the FBI Finds You: The CyberTipline

Many people assume that using encrypted apps like Telegram or Signal, or private platforms like Discord, keeps them safe from federal eyes. This is a fatal miscalculation.

NCMEC and the CyberTipline

The National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC) operates the CyberTipline. Federal law (18 U.S.C. § 2258A) requires Electronic Service Providers (ESPs),including Facebook, Google, Dropbox, Twitter (X), Snap, and Microsoft,to report any apparent child pornography they detect on their servers.

How detection works:

PhotoDNA and Hash Values: Tech companies scan every image uploaded to their platforms against a database of "hashes" (unique digital fingerprints) of known CSAM. If you upload a known image, the system flags it instantly.
AI and Predictive Scanning: Newer algorithms analyze images for skin tone patterns and shapes that suggest nudity, even if the image has never been seen before.
User Reports: If a user reports a photo, human moderators review it. If it involves a minor, they are legally required to report it to NCMEC.

Once NCMEC receives a report (a "CyberTipline Report"), they package the data,IP addresses, timestamps, user details, and the images themselves,and forward it to the appropriate law enforcement agency. For international or complex interstate cases, this goes to the FBI or Homeland Security Investigations (HSI). In 2025 alone, NCMEC processed millions of these reports, leading to thousands of federal knock-and-talks and raids.

The Lifetime Debt: Restitution and Paroline

One of the most devastating but least discussed consequences of a federal sexting/CSAM conviction is restitution.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 2259, courts must order defendants to pay restitution to victims for the full amount of their losses. This includes medical costs, therapy, lost income, and attorneys' fees.

The Paroline Standard

The Supreme Court case Paroline v. United States (2014) established that every person who possesses or distributes a victim's image is liable for a portion of the victim's total aggregate damages. In the internet age, where an image can be viewed millions of times, the "total damage" to a victim is often calculated in the millions of dollars.

Courts apportion this total among defendants. It is not uncommon for a defendant convicted of simple possession or distribution to be ordered to pay $3,000, $10,000, or even $50,000 per victim identified in their collection. If a defendant had images of 100 different victims, the restitution order could easily reach six or seven figures.

Non-Dischargeable Debt: Unlike credit card debt, this restitution cannot be wiped out in bankruptcy. It is a lifetime financial shackle. The federal government can garnish wages, tax returns, and inheritances forever until the debt is paid.

New Laws: AI and The TAKE IT DOWN Act (2025)

The legal landscape shifted significantly in 2025 with the passage of new legislation addressing the rise of AI-generated imagery and non-consensual deepfakes.

The TAKE IT DOWN Act (Passed 2025)

The "Tools to Address Known Exploitation by Immobilizing Technological Deepfakes on Websites and Networks Act" (TAKE IT DOWN Act) established federal criminal penalties for the publication of "non-consensual intimate visual depictions" (NCII). This was a landmark shift, as federal law previously lacked a specific "revenge porn" statute.

Key Provisions:

Criminalizes Publication: It is now a federal crime to knowingly publish intimate visual depictions of a person with the intent to harm, if the person did not consent to the publication.
Covers Deepfakes: The law explicitly includes "realistic" AI-generated images. If you use AI to "undress" a classmate or celebrity and post it online, you have violated federal law.
48-Hour Takedown Duty: Covered platforms must remove a reported nonconsensual intimate image within 48 hours of a valid request.
No New Civil Action: The TAKE IT DOWN Act itself is criminal-only; it does not create a federal civil cause of action. A separate, earlier civil action, 15 U.S.C. Section 6851 (added in 2022), lets victims sue for actual damages or statutory damages of up to $150,000 per violation over real nonconsensual intimate images. Whether Section 6851 also covers AI-generated digital forgeries is an unsettled legal question, since its definitions predate the TAKE IT DOWN Act's separate "digital forgery" concept and courts have not resolved whether it extends that far.

AI and "Virtual" Depictions Clarified

Under 18 U.S.C. § 2256(8), federal law has long prohibited "virtual" child pornography. The 2025 updates and recent court rulings have solidified that AI-generated images that are "virtually indistinguishable" from actual minors are prosecuted with the same severity as images of real children. The argument that "no real child was harmed" is not a defense to the charge of possessing or distributing the material, as the law views the material itself as stimulating demand for the abuse of real children.

Are There Any Defenses?

Defending against federal charges is notoriously difficult due to the strict liability nature of these offenses.

Mistake of Age? (Generally No)

Federal courts generally hold that a defendant's belief that the minor was over 18 is not a defense to production or distribution charges. If the subject was under 18, the crime was committed. Some limited affirmative defenses exist for receipt offenses if the defendant was deceived by a believable government-issued ID, but these are incredibly rare and narrow.

The "Dost" Factors (Is it Lascivious?)

Not every nude photo is legally "lascivious." Courts use the Dost factors (from United States v. Dost) to determine if an image constitutes child pornography. Factors include:

Whether the focal point is on the child's genitalia or pubic area.
Whether the setting is sexually suggestive (e.g., a bedroom vs. a bathtub).
The child's attire (or lack thereof).
The child's age.
Whether the image is intended to elicit a sexual response.

Defense attorneys often argue that innocent "bathtub photos" or non-sexual nudity do not meet this threshold, but for explicit sexting cases, this defense rarely succeeds.

Fourth Amendment Challenges

The most viable defense in many federal cases is attacking the search warrant. If the FBI raided a home without probable cause, or if the warrant was overly broad, a defense attorney might be able to suppress the evidence found on the devices. However, "good faith" exceptions often allow evidence to be used even if the warrant was flawed.

Long-Term Consequences (SORNA)

The Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) sets federal standards for sex offender registration. Federal sexting convictions almost always trigger registration requirements.

Tier I: 15 years of registration.
Tier II: 25 years of registration.
Tier III: Lifetime registration.

Production of child pornography (§ 2251) is a Tier III offense, meaning a conviction results in lifetime registration on the public sex offender registry. This applies regardless of the offender's age at the time of conviction. Registrants must update their information (address, employer, vehicle, email addresses) in person at regular intervals. Failure to register is a separate federal felony.

Sexting Laws by State

Select a state for its specific sexting laws and penalties:

Frequently Asked Questions

Does federal law apply if I used a VPN?

Yes. Using a Virtual Private Network (VPN) or encrypted messaging apps (like Signal or Telegram) does not exempt you from federal law. While these tools mask your IP address from websites, they do not hide you from the service provider itself if they receive a warrant, nor do they prevent the recipient from screenshotting the content. Furthermore, using technology to conceal your identity can be used by prosecutors to argue for "sophisticated means" sentencing enhancements.

If I'm a teen, will I definitely go to federal prison?

Not necessarily. While the *law* allows for it, federal prosecutors (U.S. Attorneys) operate under guidelines that typically prioritize adult predators. Most teen-to-teen cases are referred to state or local authorities, who often have "diversion" programs. However, relying on prosecutorial discretion is a dangerous gamble. If a case is prosecuted federally, the mandatory minimums apply regardless of the teen's "good character."

Can parents be charged if they find images on their child's phone?

Technically, possessing the images is a crime. However, 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(d) provides an affirmative defense available to anyone who possesses fewer than three such images and, in good faith, promptly takes reasonable steps to destroy them or reports the matter to law enforcement without retaining copies. The defense is not limited to parents or mandated reporters, but the safest course is still to avoid saving or forwarding the material. **Warning:** Do not forward the image to yourself or anyone else to "save evidence." That is distribution. Contact a lawyer immediately for guidance on how to turn it over without incriminating yourself.

What if the minor consented?

Consent is legally impossible for minors under federal law regarding sexual conduct and the production of explicit imagery. The minor's willingness to send the photo is irrelevant to the charge. In fact, arguing that the minor was "willing" can sometimes be seen as a lack of acceptance of responsibility.

Is "texting" a photo considered "shipping/transporting"?

Yes. The courts have broadly interpreted "shipping," "transporting," or "mailing" to include electronic transmission of binary data across network lines. The physical movement of electrons or light pulses across state lines satisfies the statute.

What should I do if the FBI contacts me?

**Do not speak.** Federal agents are experts at interrogation. They may arrive at your home early in the morning (a "knock and talk") to catch you off guard. Lying to a federal agent is a separate felony (18 U.S.C. § 1001)). Politely state, "I am not going to answer any questions. I want to speak to an attorney," and then close the door. Do not let them in without a warrant.

Updates

August 20, 2026

Corrected an overstated claim that a federal civil lawsuit (15 U.S.C. 6851) clearly covers AI-generated intimate image forgeries (coverage is legally unsettled per the Congressional Research Service) and fixed a mislabeled federal sentencing guideline enhancement for distributing images for profit, which requires at least a 5-level increase, not 2.

August 20, 2026

Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes

August 10, 2026

Corrected a misattribution of the $150,000 federal civil damages provision. The TAKE IT DOWN Act (Public Law 119-12) creates only federal criminal penalties and a 48-hour platform takedown duty; it has no civil cause of action. The $150,000 statutory-damages civil remedy for AI-generated intimate-image forgeries is a separate provision, 15 U.S.C. Section 6851 (added by the 2022 VAWA Reauthorization Act and expanded by the 2024 DEFIANCE Act).

August 9, 2026

Corrected the FAQ answer on the 18 U.S.C. 2252A(d) affirmative defense: the defense is available to anyone who possesses fewer than three images and promptly destroys or reports them, not only to parents, guardians, or mandated reporters as the page previously stated.

August 9, 2026

Governing law re-checked for recent changes

September 18, 2021

Reviewed and approved by an editor

State-by-state comparison

Each state guide below is paired with the governing statute our editors adjudicated for it, held in our own legal record and verified against the official source.

State	Statute cited	Court citations
Alabama	Code of Alabama 1975, Title 13A: Criminal Code. § 13A-12-197 — Production of Child Sexual Abuse Material.	2 opinions · latest 2010
Alaska	—	—
Arizona	Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 8 (Child Safety), Chapter 3 (JUVENILE OFFENDERS), Article 1 (General Procedures for Delinquency and Incorrigibility Proceedings) § 8-309 — Unlawful use of an electronic communication device by a…	—
Arkansas	Arkansas Code of 1987 Annotated § 5-27-609 — Possession of sexually explicit digital material.	—
California	California Penal Code § 311.11	167 opinions · latest 2026
Colorado	Colorado Revised Statutes, Title 18: Criminal Code § 18-7-109 — Disclosure, possession, or exchange of a private intimate…	—
Connecticut	Connecticut General Statutes, Title 53a (Penal Code), Chapter 952 § 53a-196h — Possessing or transmitting child sexual abuse material by…	1 opinions · latest 2012
Delaware	Delaware Code, Title 11 (Crimes and Criminal Procedure), Chapter 005 (SPECIFIC OFFENSES) § 1109 — Dealing in child sexual abuse material; class B or D felony.	—
Florida	Florida Statutes § 847.0141 — Sexting; prohibited acts; penalties.	—
Georgia	Official Code of Georgia Annotated § 16-12-100 — Sexual exploitation of children; reporting violation; civil…	136 opinions · latest 2026
Hawaii	Hawaii Revised Statutes, Chapter 712: OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC HEALTH AND MORALS § 712-1215.6 — Promoting minor-produced sexual images in the second degree	—
Idaho	Idaho Code § 18-1507a — Sexual exploitation of a child by electronic means	13 opinions · latest 2022
Illinois	Illinois Compiled Statutes Chapter 705, Act 405 (Juvenile Court Act of 1987) § 3-40 — Minors involved in electronic dissemination of indecent…	—
Indiana	Indiana Code, TITLE 35. CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE § 35-45-4-6 — Indecent display by a youth	—
Iowa	Iowa Code, Chapter 728: OBSCENITY § 728.12 — Sexual exploitation of a minor.	61 opinions · latest 2026
Kansas	Kansas Statutes Annotated, Chapter 21: CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS § 21-5611 — Unlawful transmission of a visual depiction of a child.	2 opinions · latest 2025
Kentucky	Kentucky Revised Statutes, Chapter 531: PORNOGRAPHY § 531.335 — Possession or viewing of matter portraying a sexual…	26 opinions · latest 2026
Louisiana	Louisiana Revised Statutes § 14:81.1.1 — "Sexting"; prohibited acts; penalties	—
Maine	Maine Revised Statutes, Title 17-A: MAINE CRIMINAL CODE, Part 2: SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSES, Chapter 12: SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF MINORS § 284 — Possession of sexually explicit material	23 opinions · latest 2026
Maryland	Maryland Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article § 3-8A-35	—
Massachusetts	Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 272 § 29D — Possession, purchase or dissemination by minor of visual…	—
Michigan	Michigan Compiled Laws § 750.145c — Definitions; child sexually abusive activity or material;…	195 opinions · latest 2026
Minnesota	Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 617: ABORTION; OBSCENITY; NUISANCE § 617.246 — USE OF MINORS IN SEXUAL PERFORMANCE PROHIBITED	38 opinions · latest 2024
Mississippi	Mississippi Code of 1972 Annotated § 97-5-33 — Exploitation of children; prohibitions.	29 opinions · latest 2026
Missouri	Revised Statutes of Missouri, Title XXXVIII (CRIMES AND PUNISHMENT; PEACE OFFICERS AND PUBLIC DEFENDERS), Chapter 573 § 573.037 — Possession of child pornography — penalty.	20 opinions · latest 2024
Montana	Montana Code Annotated, Title 45 § 45-5-625 — Sexual Abuse Of Children	26 opinions · latest 2025
Nebraska	Nebraska Revised Statutes, Chapter 28: CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS § 28-1803 — Child sexual abuse material; possess or receive; unlawful;…	2 opinions · latest 2026
Nevada	Nevada Revised Statutes, Chapter 200: CRIMES AGAINST THE PERSON § 200.737 — Use of electronic communication device by minor to possess,…	—
New Hampshire	New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated, TITLE LXII CRIMINAL CODE, CHAPTER 649-A CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE IMAGES § 649-A:3-a — Distribution of Child Sexual Abuse Images.	3 opinions · latest 2025
New Jersey	New Jersey Statutes (Unannotated) § 2C:24-4 — Endangering welfare of children.	—
New Mexico	New Mexico Statutes Annotated 1978, Chapter 30 § 30-6A-3 — Sexual exploitation of children	57 opinions · latest 2026
New York	New York Penal Law § 263.15 — Promoting a sexual performance by a child	65 opinions · latest 2026
North Carolina	North Carolina General Statutes, Chapter 14: Criminal Law. § 14-190.17 — Second degree sexual exploitation of a minor	—
North Dakota	North Dakota Century Code § 12.1-27.1-03.3 — Creation, possession, or dissemination of sexually…	—
Ohio	Ohio Revised Code § 2907.323 — Illegal use of minor or impaired person in nudity-oriented…	423 opinions · latest 2026
Oklahoma	Oklahoma Statutes, Title 10A: CHILDREN AND JUVENILE CODE § 2-8-221 — Transmission of obscene or sexual abuse materials	—
Oregon	Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapter 163: Offenses Against Persons § 163.686 — Encouraging child sexual abuse in the second degree	—
Pennsylvania	Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes Title 18 (Crimes and Offenses) § 6321 — Transmission of sexually explicit images by minor	7 opinions · latest 2024
Rhode Island	Rhode Island General Laws, Title 11: Criminal Offenses, Chapter 11-9: Children § 11-9-1.4 — Minor electronically disseminating indecent material to…	—
South Carolina	South Carolina Code of Laws, Title 16: CRIMES AND OFFENSES § 16-15-405 — Second degree sexual exploitation of a minor defined;…	—
South Dakota	South Dakota Codified Laws, Chapter 26-10: OFFENSES BY AND AGAINST MINORS § 26-10-33 — Juvenile sexting prohibited--Violation as misdemeanor.	—
Tennessee	Tennessee Code Annotated § 37-1-148 — Illegal use of telecommunication device by minor.	—
Texas	Texas Penal Code § 43.261 — ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION OF CERTAIN VISUAL MATERIAL…	—
Utah	Utah Code, Title 76: Criminal Offenses § 76-5c-205 — Distributing material harmful to minors.	—
Vermont	Vermont Statutes Annotated, Title 13: Crimes and Criminal Procedure, Chapter 63: Obscenity § 2802b — Minor electronically disseminating indecent material to…	1 opinions · latest 2015
Virginia	Code of Virginia, Title 18.2: Crimes and Offenses Generally § 18.2-374.1:1 — Possession, reproduction, distribution, solicitation, and…	8 opinions · latest 2025
Washington	Revised Code of Washington § 9.68A.053 — Sexually explicit images—Crimes by minors—Penalties.	—
West Virginia	West Virginia Code § 61-8C-3B — Prohibiting juveniles from manufacturing, possessing, and…	—
Wisconsin	Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 948: Crimes Against Children § 948.12 — Possession of child pornography.	37 opinions · latest 2024
Wyoming	Wyoming Statutes, Title 6 - Crimes and Offenses - Chapter 4: Offenses Against Morals, Decency and Family - Article 3: Obscenity § 6-4-305 — Dissemination or possession of a nude image of a minor by a…	—

Each statute shown is the same adjudicated anchor its state guide renders, independently verified against primary sources. A dash means not yet adjudicated in our record — never that no law exists.

The Law Behind This Article

This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.

United States Code Title 18

§ 1001Statements or entries generallyIn forcecited in 2 of our articles

Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully— falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years. Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov

Cited in 6,270 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026

Leading cases:

Davis v. Washington (Supreme Court of the United States 2006, 547 U.S. 813)“…06) (false statements made to federal investigators violate 18 U. S. C. §1001); State v. Reed, 2005 WI 53, ¶30, 695 N…”
United States v. Gaudin (Supreme Court of the United States 1995, 515 U.S. 506)“…ond a reasonable doubt”). The Government has conceded that 18 U. S. C. § 1001 requires that the false statements mad…”
United States v. Bajakajian (Supreme Court of the United States 1998, 524 U.S. 321)“…ment to the United States Customs Service, in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 1001 . Count Three sought forfeiture of the…”

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Also relied on in: Can Felons Travel Outside the US? What Countries You Can Visit

§ 2251Sexual exploitation of childrenIn forcecited in 7 of our articles

Any person who employs, uses, persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any minor to engage in, or who has a minor assist any other person to engage in, or who transports any minor in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, or in any Territory or Possession of the United States, with the intent that such minor engage in, any sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing any visual depiction of such conduct or for the purpose of transmitting a live visual depiction of such conduct, shall be punished as provided under subsection (e), if such person knows or has reason to know that such visual depiction will be transported or transmitted using any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce or in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or mailed, if that visual depiction was produced or transmitted using materials that have been mailed, shipped, or transported in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer, or if such visual depiction has actually been transported or transmitted using any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce or in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or mailed.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov

Cited in 2,812 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026

Leading cases:

United States v. Irey (Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 2010, 612 F.3d 1160)“…iled on December 13, 2006, Irey was charged with violating 18 U.S.C. § 2251 (c). The indictment alleged that he “di…”
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (Supreme Court of the United States 2002, 535 U.S. 234)“…ether the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 (CPPA), 18 U. S. C. § 2251 et seq., abridges the freedom of sp…”
United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc. (Supreme Court of the United States 1994, 513 U.S. 64)“…But as in the criminalization of pornography production at 18 U. S. C. § 2251 , see infra, at 76, n. 5, the perpetr…”

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Also relied on in: Kentucky Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws: Offenses, Penalties, and Protections, Delaware Voyeurism Laws: Hidden Cameras, Penalties, and Privacy Protections (2026), Montana Sexting Laws: Legal Consequences and Penalties

§ 2252ACertain activities relating to material constituting or containing child pornographyIn forcecited in 11 of our articles

Any person who— knowingly mails, or transports or ships using any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce or in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer, any child pornography; knowingly receives or distributes— any child pornography using any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce or that has been mailed, or has been shipped or transported in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer; or any material that contains child pornography using any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce or that has been mailed, or has been shipped or transported in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer; knowingly— reproduces any child pornography for distribution through the mails, or using any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce or in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer; or advertises, promotes, presents, distributes, or solicits through the mails, or using any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce or in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by…

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov

Cited in 3,530 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026

In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):United States v. Williams (2008) held that Section 2252A(a)(3)(B), the pandering and solicitation provision, is neither overbroad under the First Amendment nor unconstitutionally vague. United States v. Pugh (2008) applied the section at sentencing, holding a probation-only sentence for possession unreasonable.

Leading cases:

United States v. Williams (Supreme Court of the United States 2008, 553 U.S. 285)✓Williams posted in a chat room offering 'good' pictures of his toddler daughter for swaps and linked to images of real children; the Supreme Court held 2252A(a)(3)(B), which bans offers to provide or requests to obtain child pornography, is neither overbroad nor vague.
United States v. Pugh (Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 2008, 515 F.3d 1179)✓Pugh pleaded guilty under 2252A(a)(5)(B) to possessing 68 images and two videos of child pornography he obtained by posing as a girl in chat rooms; the Eleventh Circuit held the five-year probation sentence, with no prison and no supervised release, substantively unreasonable.
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (Supreme Court of the United States 2002, 535 U.S. 234)✓Adult entertainment producers, a nudist publisher and artists challenged the CPPA definitions reaching images that 'appear to be' or 'convey the impression' of minors; the Supreme Court held both definitions, which widened what 2252A reaches, facially overbroad.

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Also relied on in: Hawaii Sexting Laws: Legal Consequences and Penalties, Minnesota Sexting Laws: Legal Consequences and Penalties, New Hampshire Sexting Laws: Legal Consequences and Penalties

§ 2256Definitions for chapterIn forcecited in 53 of our articles

For the purposes of this chapter, the term— “minor” means any person under the age of eighteen years; Except as provided in subparagraph (B), “sexually explicit conduct” means actual or simulated— sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; bestiality; masturbation; sadistic or masochistic abuse; or lascivious exhibition of the anus, genitals, or pubic area of any person; For purposes of subsection 8(B) 1  So in original. Probably should be “(8)(B)”.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov

Cited in 1,142 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026

In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002) held the child pornography definitions in 2256(8)(B) and (8)(D), reaching virtual and pandered images, overbroad under the First Amendment. United States v. Williams (2008) construed sexually explicit conduct in 2256(2)(A), reading simulated to require explicit portrayal of the act.

Leading cases:

United States v. Williams (Supreme Court of the United States 2008, 553 U.S. 285)✓Williams posted a chat-room link to photos of real children and was convicted of pandering. Upholding that ban, the Court read section 2256(2)(A)'s definition of sexually explicit conduct as tracking the one approved in Ferber, and said material must in fact meet it.
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (Supreme Court of the United States 2002, 535 U.S. 234)✓An adult-entertainment trade group, a nudist-lifestyle publisher, a painter and a photographer challenged the CPPA. The Court held sections 2256(8)(B) and 2256(8)(D), reaching images that only appear to be of minors or are pandered that way, overbroad and unconstitutional.
United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc. (Supreme Court of the United States 1994, 513 U.S. 64)✓A distributor sold tapes of an actress filmed before she turned 18. Besides reading 'knowingly' in section 2252 to reach the performer's age, the Court rejected as insubstantial the claim that section 2256 is vague and overbroad for setting majority at 18 and using 'lascivious.'

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Also relied on in: Deepfake & AI Voice Cloning Laws by State (2026), Alaska Deepfake Laws: AI Images, Voice Cloning & Penalties (2026), Arizona Deepfake Laws: AI Images, Voice Cloning & Penalties (2026)

§ 2258AReporting requirements of providersIn force

In order to reduce the proliferation of online child sexual exploitation and to prevent the online sexual exploitation of children, a provider— shall, as soon as reasonably possible after obtaining actual knowledge of any facts or circumstances described in paragraph (2)(A), take the actions described in subparagraph (B); and may, after obtaining actual knowledge of any facts or circumstances described in paragraph (2)(B), take the actions described in subparagraph (B). The actions described in this subparagraph are— providing to the CyberTipline of NCMEC, or any successor to the CyberTipline operated by NCMEC, the mailing address, telephone number, facsimile number, electronic mailing address of, and individual point of contact for, such provider; and making a report of such facts or circumstances to the CyberTipline, or any successor to the CyberTipline operated by NCMEC. The facts or circumstances described in this subparagraph are any facts or circumstances from which there is an apparent violation of section 2251, 2251A, 2252, 2252A, 2252B, or 2260 that involves child pornography, of section 1591 (if the violation involves a minor), or of 1  So in original.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov

Cited in 83 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026

Leading cases:

United States v. Ackerman (Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit 2016, 831 F.3d 1292)“…rnmental entity. NCMEC’s two primary authorizing statutes — 18 U.S.C. § 2258A and 42 U.S.C. § 5773(b) — mandate its c…”
United States v. Cameron (Court of Appeals for the First Circuit 2012, 699 F.3d 621)“…ans of interstate or foreign commerce") (current version at 18 U.S.C. § 2258A(a)(1) (2012)). NCMEC is a non-profi…”
United States v. William Miller (Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 2020, 982 F.3d 412)“…services, federal law requires them to report it to NCMEC. 18 U.S.C. §§ 2258A(a), 2258E(6). NCMEC operates a “CyberTi…”

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

§ 2259Mandatory restitutionIn force

Notwithstanding section 3663 or 3663A, and in addition to any other civil or criminal penalty authorized by law, the court shall order restitution for any offense under this chapter. Except as provided in paragraph (2), the order of restitution under this section shall direct the defendant to pay the victim (through the appropriate court mechanism) the full amount of the victim’s losses. If the defendant was convicted of trafficking in child pornography, the court shall order restitution under this section in an amount to be determined by the court as follows: The court shall determine the full amount of the victim’s losses that were incurred or are reasonably projected to be incurred by the victim as a result of the trafficking in child pornography depicting the victim. After completing the determination required under subparagraph (A), the court shall order restitution in an amount that reflects the defendant’s relative role in the causal process that underlies the victim’s losses, but which is no less than $3,000. A victim’s total aggregate recovery pursuant to this section shall not exceed the full amount of the victim’s demonstrated losses.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov

Cited in 306 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026

Leading cases:

Paroline v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 2014, 572 U.S. 434)“…1691 , 109 L.Ed.2d 98 (1990). Congress enacted 18 U.S.C. § 2259 against this backdrop. The statute im…”
United States v. Richard C. Crandon (Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 1999, 173 F.3d 122)“…red as a proximate result of the offense. See 18 U.S.C. § 2259 (b)(3). Crandon argues that: *1…”
United States v. McGarity (Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 2012, 669 F.3d 1218)“…defendant Freeman. In so doing, the Government relied upon 18 U.S.C. § 2259(c). At the scheduled hearing, th…”

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

§ 2261AStalkingIn forcecited in 53 of our articles

Whoever— travels in interstate or foreign commerce or is present within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or enters or leaves Indian country, with the intent to kill, injure, harass, intimidate, or place under surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate another person, and in the course of, or as a result of, such travel or presence engages in conduct that— places that person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to— that person; an immediate family member (as defined in section 115) of that person; a spouse or intimate partner of that person; or the pet, service animal, emotional support animal, or horse of that person; or causes, attempts to cause, or would be reasonably expected to cause substantial emotional distress to a person described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of subparagraph (A); or with the intent to kill, injure, harass, intimidate, or place under surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate another person, uses the mail, any interactive computer service or electronic communication service or electronic communication system of interstate commerce, or any other…

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov

Cited in 350 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026

In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Federal appeals courts have construed and upheld Section 2261A. United States v. Walker (2011) read in the course of, or as a result of such travel disjunctively, so pre-travel threats plus resulting fear sufficed. United States v. Amy Gonzalez (2018) held it neither overbroad nor vague and no First Amendment violation as applied.

Leading cases:

United States v. Walker (Court of Appeals for the First Circuit 2011, 665 F.3d 212)✓After emailing threats to his estranged wife, the defendant flew from Michigan to Puerto Rico and was arrested on arrival. The court read the disjunctive phrase in 2261A(1) to cover travel that itself places the target in reasonable fear, and upheld the stalking conviction.
United States v. Amy Gonzalez (Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 2018, 905 F.3d 165)✓Relatives waged a years-long campaign against a mother that ended in a courthouse shooting. The court held 2261A is neither overbroad nor vague because it reaches harassing conduct, and that the mental states it lists are alternative means, not elements; convictions affirmed.
United States v. Wills (Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 2003, 346 F.3d 476)✓A burglary suspect pursued the witness who identified him at a preliminary hearing; the witness later died. The court held the evidence met each element of 2261A: travel from D.C. to Virginia, intent to harm or harass, and reasonable fear of death; conviction affirmed.

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Also relied on in: Alabama GPS Tracking Laws: Is It Legal to Put a Tracker on a Car? (2026), Colorado GPS Tracking Laws: Is It Legal to Put a Tracker on a Car? (2026), Florida GPS Tracking Laws: Is It Legal to Put a Tracker on a Car? (2026)

§ 875Interstate communicationsIn force

Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any demand or request for a ransom or reward for the release of any kidnapped person, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both. Whoever, with intent to extort from any person, firm, association, or corporation, any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both. Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov

Cited in 916 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026

Leading cases:

Irizarry v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 2008, 553 U.S. 708)“…ing a threatening interstate communication, in violation of 18 U. S. C. §875(c). Petitioner made the fol- lowing adm…”
Elonis v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 2015, 575 U.S. 723)“…know which mental state is required for conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 875 (c), an important criminal statute. Th…”
United States v. Arthur Morrison (Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 1998, 153 F.3d 34)“…irectors, with the intent to extort money, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 875 (d); four counts of wire fraud in viola…”

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →

Sources and References

Federal Public Defender(federaldefenders.org)
National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC)(missingkids.org)
Cyber Civil Rights Initiative(ccri.org)
DOJ Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS)(justice.gov).gov
FBI Crimes Against Children(fbi.gov).gov