18 U.S.C. § 1466
Engaging in the business of selling or transferring obscene matter
2006—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 109–248, § 506(b)(1), inserted “producing with intent to distribute or sell, or” before “selling or transferring obscene matter,”.
Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 109–248, § 506(b)(3), which directed amendment of subsec. (b) by inserting “production,” before “selling or transferring or offering to sell or transfer such material.”, was executed by making the insertion before “selling or transferring or offering to sell or transfer such material be”, to reflect the probable intent of Congress.
Pub. L. 109–248, § 506(b)(2), inserted “produces” before “sells or transfers or offers to sell or transfer obscene matter”.
1990—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 101–647 substituted “this section” for “this subsection” and “this subsection” for “subsection (b)”.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 31
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1989–2025 · leading case: Alexander v. United States
Alexander v. United States (1993)
“§ 1465 ; and 5 counts of engaging in the business of selling obscene material, in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 1466 (1988 ed. and Supp. III).”
United States v. Rodney Skinner (1994)
“Defendant-Appellant Rodney Skinner (“Skinner”) appeals his conviction and sentence following a guilty plea to possession and distribution of obscene matter in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1466 and 2. Skinner argues § 1466 contains an unconstitutional presumption and he also argues…”
In Re Grand Jury Investigation of Possible Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1461 (2009)
“Has the Government met its burden? In addition to several other obscenity statutes, the grand jury is investigating a possible violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1466 , which criminalizes the interstate or foreign shipment of obscene materials by those persons engaged in the business of…”
United States v. Alexander (1990)
“Accordingly, defendants’ motions for dismissal of the counts based on 18 U.S.C. § 1466 should be denied. 3. Equitable Estoppel Defendants argue that this prosecution is a “sudden, unexpected, and unwarranted reactivation of prosecution” of obscenity matters by the federal…”
United States v. Arthur (2022)
“§ 1462 (a) (Counts 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6); and one count of engaging in the business of selling or transferring obscene matters, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1466 (a) (Count 7). Counts 1, 8, and 9 were premised on drawings used as profile pictures by three authors on Arthur’s…”
Eckstein v. Cullen (1992)
“In Count III, plaintiff asserts that the federal obscenity law, 18 U.S.C. § 1466 , is unconstitutionally vague as applied, because it fails to give her appropriate guidance regarding which sexually explicit magazines she may permissibly sell.”
Adult Video Association, Doe, Inc., Roe, Inc., Paul Poe v. William Barr, Attorney General of the United States (1992)
“18 U.S.C. §§ 1466 (a), 2253(a); cf. Fort Wayne Books, 489 U.”
Kathleen L. Eckstein, Administratrix of the Estate of Harry J. Eckstein, Jr. v. Kenneth E. Melson (1994)
“, particularly 18 U.S.C. § 1466 , is unconstitutional under the First and Fifth Amendments.”
United States v. Brian K. Schultz (1992)
“§ 1462 (a)), and (4) receive and possess obscene matter while engaged in the business of transferring obscene matter ( 18 U.S.C. § 1466 (a)), in violation of 18 U.”
Campbell v. U.S. Department of Justice (2001)
“The information in the "Headquarters Files” was derived from "information which indicated that he [James Baldwin] was threatening to make false charges against the FBI in an interview scheduled to air on a local TV station,” and, with respect to a book published by James…”
United States v. Ashley Richards (2014)
“§ 48 ; (2) one count of engaging in the business of selling or transferring obscene matter, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1466 (a); and (3) one count of production and transportation of obscene matters for sale or distribution, in violation of 18 U.”
American Library Ass'n v. Thornburgh (1989)
“7521, 18 U.S.C. § 1466 ), making possession of child pornography with intent to distribute on federal property a criminal offense (sec.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.