No it is not legal. 2003 it was outlawed by what Bush calls the "Amber Alert Law."

I don't think the Amber alert law has anything to do with lolicon. You answer really didn't help at all. Thanks anyway.

Apparently the supreme court has knocked down every attempt at making animated child pornography (lolicon) illegal. Animated anything is a form of speach, and protected by the first amendment....

Yep. Even unrealistic drawings of lolicon are illegal in the US.

According to this article, it's illegal for the moment. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28319199

It's not necessarily illegal in and of itself, however an obscenity law applies to it. A decent answer to this question can be found here: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080710141216AAs2ART In 2007, the supreme court ruled that virtual child pornography remained under the protection of the First Amendment, except when it was offered or solicited under the mistaken impression that actual children were depicted. See below: In December 2005, Dwight Whorley was convicted[66] under 18 U.S.C. 1466A(a)(1) on twenty counts for receiving "...obscene Japanese anime cartoons that graphically depicted prepubescent female children being forced to engage in genital-genital and oral-genital intercourse with adult males."[67] At the time of the violations, Whorley was on parole for earlier sex crimes, although the ensuing convictions were independent of his violation of the terms of the parole. He was also convicted of possessing child pornography involving real children. [68] Later, U.S. Attorney's Bulletin, which was requested in November 2006 by the Freedom of Information Act, describes the repercussions of this conviction. It recommends that the precedent set by the Whorley case be used as a basis for future prosecutions for possession of such obscene cartoons. On April 6, 2006, the arrest of one Michael Williams for child pornography was upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, but the portion of the arrest which pertained to the PROTECT Act was overturned. Specific cartoon depictions of what appears to be a minor engaging in overt sexual intercourse (not merely sexually explicit) were deemed insufficient to actually fulfill the requirements of the PROTECT Act, as the content described in subsections (i) and (ii) of § 2252A(a)(3)(B) is not constitutionally protected, speech that advertises or promotes such content does have the protection of the First Amendment. Accordingly, § 2252A(a)(3)(B) was held to be unconstitutionally overbroad. The Eleventh Circuit further held that the law was unconstitutionally vague, in that it did not adequately and specifically describe what sort of speech was criminally actionable.[69] The Department of Justice appealed the Eleventh Circuit's ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. The case review docket is listed as 06-0694 and was scheduled for October 30, 2007 on the 2007-2008 schedule.[4] The Supreme Court heard arguments on the case and overturned the Eleventh Circuit's ruling 7-2 with Justices Souter and Ginsberg dissenting. The court stressed that virtual child pornography remained under the protection of the First Amendment, except when it was offered or solicited under the mistaken impression that actual children were depicted.[70]