A U.S. appeals court on Monday revived a lawsuit brought by members of the adult entertainment industry which challenges federal laws requiring pornography producers to report the ages of all performers.

A district judge had dismissed the case in 2010, finding that the government could require all pornography producers to verify the age of their performers and maintain identification records for federal inspection.

But the Philadelphia-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit reversed the ruling and reinstated claims that the regulations violated both the producers’ First Amendment right to free speech and their Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches.

The record keeping laws, designed to prevent child pornography, carry criminal penalties for both primary producers as well as secondary producers who republish pornography on their websites.

The Free Speech Coalition, a pornography trade organization, and 14 other members of the adult entertainment industry sued in 2009 to block the regulations.

[Besides the FSC, the plaintiffs attached to the suit include the American Society of Media Photographers, which represents 7,000 members; Barbara Nitke, a teacher at the School of Visual Arts in New York and a commercial photographer; David Steinberg, a photographer and writer of sexual issues; Nina Hartley, a performer and website owner; and Michael Barone, a photographer.

The plaintiffs list also includes Dave Cummings, an adult industry performer who owns numerous websites; Tom Hymes, an adult industry journalist who runs a website; Sinclair Institute, which operates sexual health clinics; gay porn studio Channel 1 Releasing; Barbara Alper, a photographer; Carol Queen, a sexologist and feminist sex educator; Dave Levingston, a photographer; and Betty Dodson and Carlin Ross, who co-host a website.]

They argued that the requirements went further than necessary to protect children from exploitation by pornographers. A large amount of pornography includes clearly mature adults who could not be mistaken for children, they argued.

The government responded that the industry’s practice of employing young-looking performers made it nearly impossible for law enforcement officers to effectively investigate potential child pornography.

The trial judge upheld the regulations, granting the government’s request to dismiss the suit. But the 3rd Circuit disagreed, ruling that the plaintiffs should have an opportunity to develop the case further to determine whether the regulations are overly broad.

“If one of the Plaintiffs employs performers that no reasonable person could conclude were minors, then that plaintiff may be able to demonstrate that the Statutes burden substantially more of that plaintiff’s speech than is necessary to protect children from sexual exploitation,” Judge Brooks Smith wrote for the three-judge panel.

Wyn Hornbuckle, a spokesman for the Department of Justice, said lawyers for the government were reviewing the decision and had no further comment.

Diane Duke, executive director of the Free Speech Coalition, welcomed the ruling.

“We understand that regulations need to be there. We just need regulations that are reasonable and that we can comply with,” she said, adding that a producer could face five years in prison for misfiling a document.

The 3rd Circuit cited two other appellate decisions from the District of Columbia Circuit and the 6th Circuit that previously upheld the recordkeeping requirements against constitutional challenges.

The 3rd Circuit case is Free Speech Coalition et al v. Attorney General of the United States, No. 10-4085.