United States v. Steven Michael Adams

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• warning that subsequent legislative history is a “haz- ardous basis for inferring the intent of an earlier Congress”
• noting that “[a]ny possession of commercial child pornography ... can produce [an] effect” on the national child pornography market
• rejecting argument that “lascivious” is “too subjective” and “not susceptible to a common understanding”
• rejecting argument that \lascivious\ is \too subjective\ and \not susceptible to a common understanding\
• reciting the three categories set out in Lopez and Morrison and applying the third to a statute criminalizing the intrastate possession of child pornography
• upholding the federal ban on possessing child pornography because even wholly intrastate possession of child pornography affects the national market for such pornography, and a ban on possession attacks the production and distribution of child pornography

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).