Chandra Law Logo

Federal civil-rights suit: Congressman Max Miller and attorney published nude photo of two-year-old daughter online

Wednesday, August 12, 2026

Federal civil-rights suit: Congressman Max Miller and attorney published nude photo of two-year-old daughter online
Congressman Max Miller

CLEVELAND, OH – Today, Emily Moreno on behalf of her two-year-old daughter, filed a federal civil-rights lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against U.S. Representative Max L. Miller, his attorney Aaron Minc, and the law firm Minc LLC, alleging that they recklessly published and distributed on the internet an unredacted nude photograph of Miller and Moreno’s daughter displaying her uncovered genitalia.

The lawsuit asserts federal claims under 15 U.S.C. § 6851 (civil action relating to disclosure of intimate images), state-law claims for civil liability for criminal acts under R.C. 2307.60, wrongful-intrusion invasion of privacy, negligence, and civil conspiracy.

The federal statute makes it illegal for anyone to disclose intimate visual depictions without consent. The term “disclose” means, the statute says, “to transfer, publish, distribute, or make accessible.” 15 U.S.C. § 6851(b)(1). Intimate visual depictions are defined to include uncovered genitals and the pubic area. 15 U.S.C. § 6851(b)(2).

According to the complaint, seeking to salvage his political reputation amid public attention regarding allegations of abusive behavior toward three women and his daughter, Congressman Miller provided a large collection of documents and media files to his attorney, Aaron Minc. On Sunday, August 2, 2026, during a live video broadcast on X (formerly Twitter) targeting Ms. Moreno, Miller distributed a link to a public Dropbox folder created and owned by Minc and his firm.

The folder contained an unredacted PDF document, the suit alleges, featuring an intimate visual depiction of the two-year-old girl, displaying her uncovered genitalia. A veteran pediatrician reviewed the photo and confirmed it depicts the child’s genitalia, contradicting Minc’s claims to the media that the child is partly clothed.

Reckless disclosure under pressure and public broadcast

The complaint details allegations about the defendants’ reckless actions and how they enabled international public access to the intimate image:

  • Urged public to view electronic folder: According to the complaint, Miller repeatedly urged his broadcast viewers to “take a look at the documents” in the Dropbox folder, actively encouraging the public to review and download the contents.

  • Massive public distribution: According to the filing, Miller’s two social-media posts linking the public Dropbox folder generated more than 400,000 total views. Minc acknowledged in email correspondence that the intimate photo remained available online for about 23 hours before being removed.

  • Editor permissions enabled: The lawsuit alleges that Minc initially set the public Dropbox folder permissions to grant editing privileges to any member of the public. And, it claims, when initial viewers deleted the files, Minc restored the folder to an earlier state—republishing the unredacted nude image—and Miller broadcast the updated link for a second time, telling followers, “Dropbox back online. Take a look.”

  • Identifiable information exposed: The filing highlights that the child’s name appeared unredacted more than 70 times within the same document containing the intimate image.

  • Admitted pressure and reckless haste: According to the filing, Minc admitted in correspondence regarding the unredacted release that he “was under an enormous amount of pressure to get the files and link live again as quickly as possible.” The complaint alleges that, in his reckless haste to assist Miller’s public-relations assault—and pressured by a furious Miller intent on maligning his ex-wife—Minc failed to properly redact the files containing the toddler’s nude image.

  • False media denials: According to the complaint, Minc later admitted responsibility for failing to redact the document but then lied to media outlets by claiming the child was partially clothed.

  • Refusing to account for the damage: Minc refused repeated requests from Ms. Moreno’s counsel to provide download logs or reveal how many times the image was accessed and transferred. He also failed to respond to repeated requests for a plan to undo the damage.

Federal statute mandates $150,000 in liquidated damages per disclosure

Under 15 U.S.C. § 6851, individuals whose intimate visual depictions are disclosed without affirmative consent in interstate commerce are entitled to statutory liquidated damages of $150,000 for each disclosure and transfer, in addition to attorney fees and injunctive relief. The lawsuit also alleges civil liability for criminal acts under Ohio law, citing violations of R.C. 2907.323(A)(2) (illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material), attempt, and complicity.

Subodh Chandra, lead counsel for the plaintiff, issued the following statement regarding the lawsuit:

This child is an entirely innocent victim who has become collateral damage to her father’s political ambition. In a desperate attempt to keep his job and attack his ex-wife, the suit alleges, Congressman Max Miller and his attorney Aaron Minc engaged in incomprehensible recklessness by blasting to hundreds of thousands of people on the internet a nude photo showing this helpless two-year-old girl’s genitalia. Any parent—and any lawyer—knows the grave danger of posting nude photos of a toddler on the public web for pedophiles and bad actors to download. They victimized an innocent child to score political points, and we intend to hold them fully accountable under federal and state law.

The family is represented by Subodh Chandra and Emily Bohatch. The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio as captioned as R.M. v. Miller, Case No. 1:26-cv-01899, and the complaint is available here.

About The Chandra Law Firm LLC

The Chandra Law Firm LLC is a boutique civil-rights law firm with offices in Ohio, California, New Mexico, and Nevada, dedicated to vindicating the rights of victims of sexual abuse, whistleblowers, and other victims of civil-rights violations. The firm is known for its advocacy in high-stakes litigation against government and corporate misconduct.

Chandra Law is experienced obtaining justice for victims of sexual misconduct. We also secure constitutional rights. And the firm helped pioneer work in holding individuals and companies accountable for civil liability for criminal acts, securing the two leading Supreme Court of Ohio decisions favorable to crime victims on the topic. If you think that your rights have been violated, you may contact us to discuss your options.

At Chandra Law, your case is our cause.®

Related Practice Areas
Revenge Porn in OhioCivil action in Ohio for dissemination of private imagesFederal civil action relating to disclosure of intimate images under 15 U.S.C. § 6851
Tags
intimate-visual-depiction15-u.s.c.-6851max-milleraaron-minccongressman-max-millerminc-llcemily-morenointimate-image

Making the right choice in legal representation can make the difference in whether you achieve a result that protects your legal rights and best interests.

Tell Us About Your Case