Seventh Circuit Issues Child Pornography Decision

The decision hinged on a Commerce Clause challenge. The Court, citing Raich and past precedent related to child pornography, held that possession of child pornography wholly for intrastate use is still subject to federal jurisdiction. From the opinion in US v. Blum:

As was the case in Raich, the high demand for child pornography in the interstate market presented the real danger that purely-intrastate child pornography would find its way to that market. Similarly, the same difficulty in distinguishing between locally-produced marijuana and interstate marijuana for enforcement purposes is problematic with respect to child pornography as well. Given those substantial concerns, and additionally considering the Congressional determination that the manufacture and possession of any child pornography itself feeds the market and increases demand for it, we hold that Congress rationally could conclude that Blum’s actions, taken in aggregation with others engaged in similar activities, substantially affects interstate commerce. We therefore join our sister circuits in rejecting the Commerce Clause challenge to the application of the statute to intrastate child pornography.

HT: How Appealing

Comments

[Daniel]

And as a constitutional matter this whole line of cases is total BS. It robs the term interstate of any meaning whatsoever. I rarely am in favor of bright line rules but this is obvious exception. If "intra" can mean "inter" whenever Congress feels like it then black=white, rich=poor, and idiot=smart too. It's judicial created insanity.