Opinion ID: 2974503
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Express Jurisdictional Element

Text: The next factor, whether the statute contains a jurisdictional element that limits its application, is met here. The statute provides, in relevant part, that: Any parent, legal guardian, or person having custody or control of a minor who knowingly permits such minor to engage in, or to assist any other person to engage in, sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing any visual depiction of such conduct shall be punished . . . if that visual depiction was produced using material that have been mailed, shipped, or transported in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer. 18 U.S.C. § 2251(b) (emphasis added). Courts have referred to this as the “materials in commerce” jurisdictional element. In United States v. Hoggard, 254 F.3d 744 (8th Cir. 2001), the Eighth Circuit considered a facial challenge to § 2251(b) and concluded that the statute was constitutional. Distinguishing -8- § 2251(b) from the statutes at issue in Lopez and Morrison, that court noted that the statute “contains an explicit jurisdictional nexus” which requires the government to prove “a concrete connection with interstate commerce,” i.e., to prove that the depiction was produced using materials that had been transported in interstate commerce. Id. at 746. This circuit, however, has previously called into question the rationale adopted by the Eighth Circuit, finding that the jurisdictional “hook” in a statute, standing alone, will not ensure its constitutionality. In United States v. Corp, 236 F.3d 325 (6th Cir. 2001), this Court addressed a facial constitutional challenge to 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B), which makes it unlawful to possess child pornography. Although Corp involved a challenge to a different child pornography statute, both statutes contain the same jurisdictional nexus and, therefore, the Court’s reasoning is instructive. The Court noted that: [a] hard and fast rule that the presence of a jurisdictional element automatically ensures the constitutionality of a statue ignores the fact that the connection between the activity regulated and the jurisdictional hook may be so attenuated as to fail to guarantee that the activity regulated has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Id. at 330-31 (citing United States v. Rodia, 194 F.3d 465, 472-73 (3rd Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1131 (2000)). Instead, in considering a facial challenge to a particular statute, the court should focus on “whether Congress had a rational basis for believing that [regulated activity] has a substantial effect on interstate commerce.”