Extreme Associates, a pornography company owned by Rob Zicari and his wife Lizzy Borden (also known as Janet Romano), was prosecuted by the federal government for alleged distribution of obscenity across state lines.

After several years of legal proceedings, the matter ended on March 11, 2009, with a plea agreement by Rob Zicari and Lizzy Borden.

[2] Zicari was interviewed in the documentary; he defended the company's content and challenged Attorney General John Ashcroft to take action against him.

[3] On August 6, 2003, Black, Borden and the company were indicted by a federal grand jury in Pittsburgh on ten counts of the production and distribution by mail and the Internet of obscene pornographic materials.

However, the indictment and trial took place in the Western District of Pennsylvania, from where undercover agents had ordered the offending materials, and video clips had been downloaded.

[1] It has been alleged the authorities chose this area of Pennsylvania because they believed a conviction for obscenity would be easier to achieve in that socially conservative district than in California, as a jury would be more likely to agree the material offended the standards of its local community, which is part of the Miller Test used to judge obscenity in the U.S.[2][4] The trial has been seen as a test case of the acceptable limits of pornography.

[3] Zicari remained in business during the trial; he continued to market and sell the five tapes that are at the center of the prosecution as The Federal Five, with a portion of the sales price going to his defense fund.

The defense moved to dismiss the indictments on the grounds that federal obscenity statutes violated the constitutional guarantees of privacy and liberty that were protected by the due process clause.

[6] On January 20, 2005, District Court Judge Gary L. Lancaster dropped the charges, agreeing with the defense that the federal anti-obscenity statutes were unconstitutional, as they violated a person's fundamental right to possess and view whatever they want in the privacy of their own home.

[6] The court did rely on Lawrence for its assertion that the government could not use public morality as a legitimate state interest which justified the infringement of consensual, adult, private sexual conduct.

[6] The court also made reference to the dissenting opinion of Justice Scalia, who said that Lawrence had questioned the validity of U.S. obscenity laws, since the government could not enforce a moral code of conduct.

[6] Judge Lancaster also cited numerous constitutional scholars who had observed that the Lawrence ruling calls federal obscenity laws into question.

Because the [Lawrence] case involved two consenting adults engaged in sexual activity in the privacy of their own home and not minors, persons who might be coerced or injured, public conduct, or prostitution, the Court found that no state interest – including promoting a moral code – could justify the law's intrusion into the personal and private life of the individuals involved.

It is reasonable to assume that these three members of the Court came to this conclusion only after reflection and that the opinion was not merely a result of over-reactive hyperbole by those on the losing side of the argument.The Department of Justice, then headed by Alberto Gonzales, announced on February 16, 2005, that it would appeal the ruling.

On March 11, 2009, Extreme Associates and its owners pleaded guilty to the reinstated obscenity charges to avoid trial, effectively shutting down the company.

The fact that such analysis has never been applied within the precise scenario outlined by the District Court – i.e., use of the talismanic phrase "substantive due process" in the context of a vendor proceeding under derivative standing on behalf of a consumer's right to privately possess obscene material – does not negate the binding precedential value of the Supreme Court cases employing that analysis.

The Court has considered the federal statutes regulating the distribution of obscenity in the context of the broader constitutional right to privacy and upheld them.

That such analysis was conducted absent its constitutional brand name does not negate its precedential value.It was therefore impermissible for the District Court to strike down the statutes at issue based on speculation that Orito and other pivotal obscenity cases "appear[] to rest on reasons rejected in" Lawrence.