## Facts

- Federal law (18 U.S.C. §§ 2257, 2257A) and implementing regulations required producers of visual depictions of actual sexually explicit conduct to verify performers’ ages and identities, keep records, and label depictions so records could be located.
- Plaintiffs included adult-content producers and other creators (e.g., photographers, artists, educators) subject to the recordkeeping and labeling requirements.
- The government justified the regime as a method to deter and detect child sexual exploitation in sexually explicit media.
- After an initial district court ruling largely upholding the scheme and an appellate remand, the district court held a bench trial to develop a factual record on the burdens on speech and the constitutionality of warrantless inspections.
- The court found that producers used young-looking adult performers and that youthfulness in appearance made age difficult to determine by sight alone.
- Plaintiffs presented evidence of compliance burdens and claimed some projects were deterred by documentation requirements; the court found insufficient proof that the regime, in practice, prevented purely private adult sexual imagery shared between consenting adult partners.
- The inspection regime allowed government agents to inspect records and enter premises without a warrant and with limited statutory constraints on time, place, scope, or frequency.

## Issues

1. Whether the age-verification, recordkeeping, and labeling requirements unlawfully burden protected expression in violation of the First Amendment, including through facial overbreadth.
2. Whether the statutory and regulatory inspection regime authorizes unreasonable, warrantless searches in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
3. If a constitutional violation exists, what relief is appropriate (injunctive vs. declaratory).

## Decision

- The court upheld the recordkeeping, labeling, and age-verification requirements against the facial First Amendment challenge under intermediate scrutiny.
- The court held the warrantless inspection scheme unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment because it failed to meet administrative-search limits.
- The court granted declaratory relief as to the Fourth Amendment violation and declined to issue an injunction.

## Legal Principles

- A content-neutral regulation affecting sexually explicit expression may be reviewed under intermediate scrutiny when aimed at preventing child exploitation rather than suppressing protected erotic expression.
- Under intermediate scrutiny, the government must show an important interest and that the regulation does not burden substantially more speech than necessary to further that interest.
- Facial overbreadth requires a showing, supported by the record, that a law’s unconstitutional applications are substantial relative to its legitimate sweep; speculative or unproven enforcement against private adult activity may be insufficient.
- Warrantless administrative inspections are permissible only if the inspection program satisfies the requirements for a constitutionally adequate substitute for a warrant, including limits on official discretion in time, place, and scope (as reflected in the Burger framework).
- An inspection regime lacking meaningful constraints and allowing broad, discretionary, warrantless entry and record review may violate the Fourth Amendment even when the underlying regulatory goals are substantial.
- A court may issue declaratory relief without an injunction where it finds a constitutional defect but determines immediate injunctive relief is not warranted on the remedial record.

## Conclusion

The district court sustained federal pornographic-media age-verification, recordkeeping, and labeling duties against a facial First Amendment attack, but declared the scheme’s warrantless inspection provisions unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment because the program lacked sufficient limits to substitute for a warrant.


Free Speech Coal., Inc. v. Holder, 957 F. Supp. 2d 564 (E.D. Pa. 2013)