How do state laws differ from federal law on mandatory minimums and guidelines for CSAM possession?

1. Federal framework: mandatory minimums plus guidelines

At the federal level, Congress has written mandatory minimum prison terms into the core CSAM statutes so that offenses like receipt, distribution, transportation and production commonly trigger a five‑year minimum (and higher minimums for production and production with prior convictions), yet simple possession typically carries a statutory maximum (up to ten years federally) without a baseline mandatory minimum — even as the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and statutory enhancements can substantially raise an individual’s expected sentence ^{[1] [2] [4] [5]}.

2. State laws: a patchwork of classifications, ranges and mandatory terms

Every state criminalizes CSAM but the substance of those laws varies enormously: some states use felony classes with multi‑year mandatory ranges (for example Illinois’ Class X or Class 1 felony ranges noted in a 50‑state comparison), some impose relatively modest maximums for possession (Michigan’s statute exposes a possessor to up to four years) and a few states divide offenses across different statutory schemes or lack a single blanket CSAM statute (Oregon is flagged as not having blanket CSAM legislation), so a defendant’s exposure depends heavily on the particular state code where charges are brought ^{[3] [6]}.

3. Sentencing enhancements, judicial discretion, and why outcomes diverge

Even when a state statute does not include a mandatory minimum, judges often apply statutory sentencing ranges plus aggravating enhancements — such as use of a computer, number of images, age of victims, or prior convictions — mirroring federal practice in effect if not in name; conversely, federal mandatory minimums remove a judge’s ability to impose a sentence below the statutory floor in many non‑possession offenses, creating a reliable baseline punishment that state laws do not uniformly replicate ^{[7] [4] [5]}.

4. Charging decisions and the practical route to federal court

Prosecutorial charging choices and jurisdictional transfers matter: many cases that begin under state investigation are referred to federal authorities because federal statutes carry broader tools (mandatory minimums, enhanced penalties, national resources), meaning a case that might result in a shorter state sentence can become a federal prosecution with mandatory minimum exposure — a practical dynamic reflected in defense practice and state‑by‑state reporting ^{[2] [3]}.

5. Emerging issues — synthetic images, statutory gaps, and legislation in motion

Federal law has moved to encompass AI‑generated CSAM in existing statutes and new proposals — advocates and specialized groups argue federal statutes and pending bills like the ENFORCE Act seek to close gaps and standardize penalties for AI‑generated material — but many state statutes have lagged in explicitly addressing synthetic CSAM, leaving uneven treatment across jurisdictions and legal uncertainty about how aggravators or mandatory terms apply to algorithmically created images ^{[8] [9] [10]}.

6. Bottom line: predictability versus variability

The consequence is a two‑tiered picture: federal law provides relatively predictable, often severe mandatory minima for most trafficking/receipt/production offenses and robust guideline enhancements, while state laws are a mosaic — some states impose heavy, specific penalties and mandatory ranges, others have lower maximums or differing statutory structures — so identical conduct can produce dramatically different sentencing exposure depending on whether a case is prosecuted under state law or federal law, and on the charging choices prosecutors make ^{[1] [3] [4]}.