United States v. Stevens

130 S.Ct. 1577 (2010)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Congress passed a law that establishes a criminal penalty of up to five years in prison for anyone who knowingly 'creates, sells, or possesses a depiction of animal cruelty,' if done 'for commercial gain' in interstate or foreign commerce. § 48(a). Section 48 focused primarily on the interstate market for 'crush videos.' There were videos featuring the intentional torture and killing of helpless animals, including cats, dogs, monkeys, mice, and hamsters. Crush videos often depict women slowly crushing animals to death 'with their bare feet or while wearing high heeled shoes,' sometimes while 'talking to the animals in a kind of dominatrix patter' over 'the cries and squeals of the animals, obviously in great pain.' Stevens (D) ran a business, 'Dogs of Velvet and Steel,' where he sold videos of pit bulls engaging in dogfights and attacking other animals. Among these videos were Japan Pit Fights and Pick-A-Winna: A Pit Bull Documentary, which include contemporary footage of dogfights in Japan (where such conduct is allegedly legal) as well as footage of American dogfights from the 1960s and 1970s. A third video, Catch Dogs and Country Living, depicts the use of pit bulls to hunt wild boar, as well as a 'gruesome' scene of a pit bull attacking a domestic farm pig. D was indicted on three counts of violating § 48. D argued that § 48 is facially invalid under the First Amendment. The District Court denied the motion. D was convicted by the jury. The en banc Third Circuit, over a three-judge dissent, declared § 48 facially unconstitutional and vacated D's conviction. It held that § 48 regulates speech that is protected by the First Amendment. It then held that § 48 could not survive strict scrutiny as a content-based regulation of protected speech. It found that the statute lacked a compelling government interest and was neither narrowly tailored to preventing animal cruelty nor the least restrictive means of doing so. It held § 48 facially invalid. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.