Ex-wife of Rep. Max Miller sues in Ohio federal court, alleging congressman shared link showing sexualized image of their young daughter

A woman who is identified in a lawsuit as the ex-wife of U.S. Rep. Max Miller has filed a federal case in Ohio accusing Miller and his lawyer, Aaron Minc, of violating federal laws related to the “disclosure of intimate images,” according to a report published by New York Post Politics.

The complaint alleges that Miller shared a link to an electronic Dropbox folder containing a photograph of their 2-year-old daughter. The report says the image allegedly depicted the child “depicting her genitalia” and was included among a larger set of documents.

According to the same report, the case argues that the alleged sharing of that link and the underlying documents violated federal statutory restrictions on the disclosure of intimate images, positioning the conduct as unlawful dissemination rather than a private handling of materials.

Miller is a Republican member of Congress, and the lawsuit was filed in a federal court in Ohio, the report says. The filing places the dispute in the federal judiciary rather than a state proceeding, and it seeks to hold both the congressman and counsel personally accountable for the alleged acts described in the complaint.

The allegations raise questions about how sensitive family and legal documents are transmitted during disputes and litigation, including what level of access is permitted for third parties and how courts address claims that a document-sharing method amounts to a prohibited disclosure.

The lawsuit also frames the conduct as tied to “disclosure,” according to the report, which can affect the legal issues the court would address, such as statutory interpretation, intent or knowledge elements (if applicable under the cited federal laws), and whether the dissemination occurred as alleged.

At this stage, the public record provided in the reporting does not include a court docket number, the specific statute(s) cited in the complaint, or any response from Miller or his attorney. Under normal court procedure, those details and any motion practice would further define the scope of the claims and the evidence in dispute.

If the case proceeds, the litigation would likely focus on whether the alleged Dropbox link-sharing and the documents contained in that folder meet the elements required under the federal laws invoked in the complaint, and whether claims against both Miller and counsel can be sustained under the theories pleaded.