ALLENTOWN, PA — Three teenage girls were handed a victory on Monday when a federal judge shot down a prosecutor’s plans to charge them with child porn distribution.U.S. District Judge James Munley issued a temporary restraining order preventing Wyoming County [PA] District Attorney George Skumanick Jr. from filing felony charges against the girls. Skumanick’s intent stemmed from the discovery of the girls’ partially clothed images on several classmates’ cell phones. Two of the girls were wearing bras in the picture they said a friend snapped of them. The third, and oldest, girl had a towel wrapped around her waist after apparently stepping out of the shower. She was topless.

Skumanick had threatened to prosecute the girls unless their parents paid a fine and agreed to send the teens to a five-week class about about sexual harassment, sexual violence and gender roles. The parents sued to block the child-porn charges on First and Fourth Amendment grounds. Among their arguments: The images were not child porn because they did not depict sexual activity, and requiring children to attend “re-education” classes violated parents’ rights to direct the upbringing of children.

“We are grateful the judge recognized that prosecuting our clients for non-sexually explicit photographs raises serious constitutional questions,” Witold Walczack, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, noted in a prepared statement. “This country needs to have a discussion about whether prosecuting minors as child pornographers for merely being impulsive and naive is the appropriate way to address the serious consequences that can result.”

Skumanick said he is considering an appeal of the judge’s decision.

“[The ruling] sets a dangerous precedent by allowing people to commit crimes and then seek refuge from state arrest in the federal courts,” he told the Associated Press.

The furor began in October, when school authorities confiscated several cell phones belonging to students aged 11 to 17 and found images of nude, semi-nude or scantily clad girls had been trade among several of the boys. Skumanick subsequently met with about 20 of the students and offered them a deal: They could avoid prosecution by paying fines, accepting probation, attending the re-education classes and agreeing to drug testing. Several students reportedly accepted the deal, but the three girls and their parents balked and sued to stop threatened prosecution. If convicted, the girls — who ranged in age from 13 to 16 — could have faced jail time and registration on the state’s sex-offender list.

In the lawsuit filed by the ACLU on the teens’ behalf, attorneys noted that the girls did not consent to the distribution of the images. In addition, the suit alleged Skumanick’s threat to prosecute was “retaliation” for the students’ refusal to participate in the class.

In his ruling, Munley noted the plaintiffs made “a reasonable argument that the images presented to the court do not appear to qualify in any way as depictions of prohibited sexual acts. Even if they were such depictions, the plaintiffs’ argument that [they] were not involved in disseminating the images is also a reasonable one.”

Pennsylvania law classifies as a felony possession or dissemination of photos of minors engaged in actual sexual activity, “lewd exhibition of the genitals” or nudity meant to titillate.

Munley scheduled a case hearing for June 2nd. The TRO issued Monday prevents Skumanick from proceeding with prosecution until the case is settled.