The state's highest court found in an order issued Monday that when the unidentified minor, who was referenced in the decision as S.G.H., was charged for the images, Colorado did not have laws on the books prohibiting the distribution of AI-generated content. Because the law was not updated until this year, a state trial court lacked sufficient reason to believe S.G.H violated the law, according to the ruling.
Justice Carlos Samour, who authored the court's opinion, began the ruling with a quote from Isaac Asimov to describe how technology — in this case generative AI — has outpaced the ability of the law to anticipate and respond to potential crimes with its use.
"To our legislature's credit, it recently stepped up and bridged the generative-AI gap that existed in the relevant statutes," Justice Samour wrote. "But that was after S.G.H. had been charged in this case with six counts of sexual exploitation of a child (two counts for each victim), so any recent legislative amendments cannot serve as a lifeline for the people here."
S.G.H. was 13 years old in December 2023 when prosecutors in Colorado's 13th Judicial District alleged he violated the state's existing sexual exploitation laws. The state accused S.G.H. of obtaining legitimate photos of his female classmates and using an AI software to apply computer-generated genitalia onto the images.
S.G.H. was taken before juvenile court, where he attempted to have the charges against him dismissed. A juvenile trial court judge handling his case found that because the images were within the state's existing definition of "sexually exploitative behavior," the charges should be allowed to proceed.
In 2023, when S.G.H. was charged, the relevant law made it a crime to create or distribute photographs of children in sexually compromising positions, but it did not specifically detail what was meant by a photograph, according to the high court's opinion.
The law was changed earlier this year when the Colorado Gov. Jared Polis signed a bill that dramatically changed state sexually exploitative material laws to cover AI-generated content, including adding a specific section in the law for juveniles who violate the law, according to the Colorado General Assembly's website.
Prosecutors argued the laws amounted to clarifications in existing law. However, the justices said that interpretation was a "hard sell," finding the changes were so dramatic they constituted a new law entirely.
The high court found that the altered images produced by S.G.H. could not plausibly be considered a photograph at the time he was charged, and that because the AI-generated image was different than the law specified, he could not be said to be in possession of illegal content.
The 2025 changes to the exploitative materials laws included changes to the definitions of "sexually explicit material," as well as what constitutes reproduction and included new references to computer-generation. The justices found the changes were so significant they could not be declared additions to the 2023-era law.
The opinion blamed the legislature needing "time to catch up" as the reason for why S.G.H. was unable to be charged, and determined that while it was sympathetic for the victims' desire for justice, existing state law when the juvenile was charged was insufficient for a conviction.
The Colorado case is one of many instances of AI-generated content specifically being created by juveniles in high school, with the opinion referencing news reports the legislators in two-dozen states have begun considering and passing laws against the content.
Michael S. Juba, who represented S.G.H., said that while he is happy that the state high court ruled in favor of his clients, the justices did not address what be believed were core free speech issues in the case.
"The court sidestepped the bigger issue in the case, which is whether statutes prohibiting pornography generated by artificial intelligence are consistent with the First Amendment," Juba said. "There is currently a split amongst states and federal circuits regarding the extension of Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition as applied to morphed images. This issue remains open and will still need to be addressed by Colorado courts when applying the new statute."
Travis Sides, the district attorney who prosecuted the case, said that while he disagrees with the Colorado Supreme Court's conclusion, he understands where the justices were coming from, and he believes the case is ultimately good for the state.
"We lost the battle in this one case of ours, but as far as prosecuting these cases across the state of Colorado we are in a much better place since the legislature amended the statute," Sides said. "I feel bad for our victims in our case but it's good for cases in the state moving forward."
S.G.H is represented by Michael S. Juba of The Juba Law Office PLLC.
The state is represented by Travis J. Sides and Madison M. Linton of the 13th Judicial District Attorney's Office.
The case is The People of the State of Colorado, In the Interest of Juvenile: S.G.H., and Concerning Respondent: C.H, case number 25CO29, in the Colorado Supreme Court.
--Editing by Covey Son.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
