Whether the child pornography offense under 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) requires the government to prove a reckless mens rea as to the minor's age under First Amendment precedent and statutory construction

No question identified. : QUESTION PR ESENTED Whether the child p ornography offense set for th in 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) requires th e government to pro ve beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had a reckless m ens rea as to the age of the minor under thi s Court’ s First Amendment precedent as most recently explained in Counterman v. Colorado , 600 U.S. 66 (2023) and as a ma tter of statu tory con structio n. i STATEMENT OF RE LATED CASES • United Sta tes v. Patrick J ones, No. 09CR1250W, U.S. District Court fo r the Sout hern Distr ict of Californ ia. Judgment entered October 16, 20 23. • United Sta tes v. Patrick J ones, No. 23-30 45, U.S. Court of Appeals for th e Ninth Circuit. Judg ment entered November 22, 202 4, rehearing deni ed January 6, 20 25. • United Sta tes v. Patrick J ones, No. 15-55 003, U.S. Court of Appeals for th e Ninth Circuit. Judg ment entered Jun e 7, 2017. • United Sta tes v. Patrick J ones, No. 12-50 120, U.S. Court of Appeals for th e Ninth Circuit. Judg ment entered July 10, 201 3. • United Sta tes v. Patrick J ones, No. 10-50 430, U.S. Court of Appeals for th e Ninth Circuit. Judg ment entered November 23, 2011 . • Patrick Jones v. United States , No. 11-91 48, Sup reme Court of th e United States. Judg ment entered April 1 6, 2012 . • Patrick Jones v. United States , No. 13-73 38, Sup reme Court of th e United States. Judg ment entered Decem ber 16, 20 13. • Patrick Jones v. United States , No. 17-70 56, Sup reme Court of th e United States. Judg ment entered January 16, 201 8. ii TABLE OF CON TENTS Table of authori ties. .iv Intro duction .1 Opinio ns below. .3 Juris diction .3 Statuto ry and cons titutio nal prov ision s.3 Stateme nt of th e case .5 Argument. .9 I. This Court sh ould grant review because the Ninth Circuit’ s 1988 opini on in Kantor II conflicts with this Cour t’s Fir st Amendm ent precedent culminating in Counterman , which requires a recklessly mens rea elem ent as to the inv olvement of a m inor in the porn ograph y.9 A. A brief hist ory of relevant child-p ornography law and Kantor II.9 B. Kantor II conflicts with this Cour t’s Fir st Amendm ent opinions, in cluding Ferber , Osborn e, and Counterman .14 II. This Court shoul d grant revi ew beca use the Ninth Circuit ’s 198 8 opin ion in Kantor II conflicts with the plain langu age of § 225 1(a) and thi s Court’ s statutor y-cons truction precedent... .18 Conclusio n.22