Proximate causation, due process, conflicting interpretation, statutory interpretation, substantive due process

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1. Proximate causation. This Court has opined that holding possessors of illegal pornography liable for the conduct of many other independent actors may be severe enough to raise Eighth Amendment concerns. : Hogan was issued a mandatory restitution order, but the Government ; demonstrated victims' losses over the totality of time and even before Hogan's objective involvement. Does due process or the . Eighth Amendment require that restitution bear a temporal proximity between a victim's losses and a defendant's conduct? 2. Due process. 18 U.S.C. § 2259(b)(2)(B) imposes a mandatory minimum restitution upon defendants that are “convicted of trafficking . in child-pornography". Hogan was charged and convicted exclusively upon a production charge which is not included’ in the statute's definition for trafficking. However, the district court still enforced a mandatory minimum restitution against Hogan. Does due process allow a court to impose a mandatory minimum restitution under 18 U.S.C. § 2259(b)(2)(B) when a defendant was not convicted of trafficking in child pornography? ; . 3. Conflicting interpretation. The Eleventh Circuit, which affirmed ; Hogan's conviction, has adopted a broad and literal reading of "induce", holding that conduct of mere. arrangement or causation "€its squarely within the definition". However, the D.C. Circuit has held that to include terms such as "arrange" or "cause" within the ambit of the word "induce" is "erronenous" and "highly prejudi— . cial". Other circuits have also supported similarly narrowed . interpretations. What is the correct interpretation and scope of “induce” in 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a)? , 4. Statutory interpretation. 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) proscribes attempting to induce a minor to engage in sexual conduct for the purpose of producing a visual depiction of that conduct. Hogan was found guilty of attempted production, despite never trying to communicate with, record, or access a minor. Does the verb "induce" in 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) encompass exclusive communications with an adult in a bilateral transaction. to purchase and receive made-to-order : illegal pornography being produced and sold by the other party? 5. Substantive due process. Congress has stated that "even fraudulent : offers to buy or sell" child porno#raphy "help to sustain the illegal market"; "no actual material need exist". 18 U.S.C. § . 2252A(a)(3)(B) proscribes pandering purported material “intended : to cause another to believe" it is child pornography. Hogan's ~ attempted production conviction rests upon what he believed through interractions with a sting agent. Does substantive due process tolerate the government engaging in harmful and illegal activity which sustains the child pornography market they prosecute?