Did the courts below impermissibly expand the scope of the federal child pornography statutes in contravention of this Court's precedents and the plain language of the statutes, thereby denying the petitioner her due process rights?

QUESTION PRESENTED 18 U.S.C. § 2251, 18 U.S.C. § 2252, and 18 U.S.C. § 2256 criminalize the : production, distribution, receipt, or possession of any image of a minor depicting “the lascivious exhibition of the ... genitals.” Critically, it is well settled that images depicting “mere nudity” or “mere pictures of genitals” are not “lascivious” within the context of the federal child pornography statutes. See e.g. United States v. Courtade, 929 F.3d 186, 191 (4% Cir. 2019). It is undisputed that the images forming the basis of Petitioner Ashley Kolhoff’s convictions are, in fact, depictions of “mere nudity” and “mere pictures of genitals”, and in no way contain any overt sexually explicit activity of any kind.! Nevertheless, the courts below sustained Ms. Kolhoff’s convictions because they determined she “intended” to create child pornography, regardless of the actual’ result. This is decidedly not the law. The question presented, then, is this: Did this impermissible expansion of the scope of the federal child pornography statutes, in direct contravention of both the holdings of this Court and the plain language of the controlling statutes, deny Ms. Kolhoff her Due Process rights to a fair trial and the constitutional protections requiring criminal laws to explicitly and definitely identify what conduct is punishable? , ' Cert