United States v. Larry Henson, 705 F. App'x 348

Larry Henson was indicted (2007; reindicted 2014) for knowingly possessing child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B); forensic review of his computer revealed thousands of sexually explicit images and videos of minors, including prepubescent victims.
Henson initially fled, was later located in Argentina, voluntarily returned, pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement reserving the right to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss, and was sentenced to 110 months’ imprisonment (below Guidelines).
Henson’s pre-plea pro se motion sought dismissal arguing § 2252(a)(4)(B) is unconstitutionally overbroad under the First Amendment (chilling protected “sexting” and self-published images by minors) and also violates Due Process and Equal Protection.
The district court denied the motion to dismiss; Henson appealed the denial while preserving his guilty plea and sentence challenge.
On appeal the Sixth Circuit reviewed constitutional and legal questions de novo and affirmed the conviction and sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Henson)	Government's Argument	Held
Whether § 2252(a)(4)(B) is facially overbroad under the First Amendment	The statute criminalizes a substantial amount of protected speech (e.g., minor self‑publication/sexting) and thus chills speech	The overbreadth doctrine is narrow; Henson offered no instance of federal enforcement against minors self‑publishing and the statute’s legitimate sweep is substantial	Court held not overbroad; Henson failed to show a substantial amount of protected speech is burdened
Whether § 2252(a)(4)(B) violates substantive due process	Henson invoked a privacy/liberty interest (Stanley) to possess images in his home	Government: possession of child pornography is not protected by Stanley; prohibiting possession serves legitimate and compelling interests (preventing child abuse)	Court rejected due process claim, citing Osborne and the government’s legitimate interest
Whether statute violates Equal Protection	Henson argued unequal treatment and that strict scrutiny should apply because of First Amendment/private‑possession claims	Government: no fundamental right at issue; statute rationally furthers compelling interests against child pornography	Court rejected equal protection claim; rational‑basis review applies and statute survives

Los Angeles Police Dep’t v. United Reporting Publ’g Corp., 528 U.S. 32 (discusses narrow application of overbreadth doctrine)
New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (child pornography may be proscribed; overbreadth requires substantial impermissible applications)
United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285 (two‑step overbreadth analysis and substantiality requirement)
Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601 (prudential limits on facial overbreadth challenges)
Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103 (Stanley does not protect possession of child pornography; banning possession serves important governmental interests)
Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (private possession of obscene material generally protected, but limited in child pornography context)
United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (limits on extending overbreadth doctrine beyond First Amendment)
United States v. Rose, 522 F.3d 710 (6th Cir. standard: de novo review of constitutional ruling)
United States v. Grenier, 513 F.3d 632 (6th Cir. standard: de novo review of legal conclusions on motion to dismiss)