Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-769.pdf
Page Number: 22

18 

UNITED STATES v. STEVENS 

Opinion of the Court 

D 
Not  to  worry,  the  Government  says:  The  Executive
Branch  construes  §48  to  reach  only  “extreme”  cruelty,
Brief for United States 8, and it “neither has brought nor 
will bring a prosecution for anything less,” Reply Brief 6–
7.  The  Government  hits  this  theme  hard,  invoking  its
prosecutorial discretion several times.  See id., at 6–7, 10, 
and  n. 6,  19,  22.    But  the  First  Amendment  protects 
against the Government; it does not leave us at the mercy 
of  noblesse  oblige.  We  would  not  uphold  an  unconstitu-
tional statute merely because the Government promised to
use  it  responsibly.  Cf.  Whitman  v.  American  Trucking 
Assns., Inc., 531 U. S. 457, 473 (2001). 

This prosecution is itself evidence of the danger in put-
ting  faith  in  government  representations  of  prosecutorial
restraint.  When  this  legislation  was  enacted,  the  Execu-
tive  Branch  announced  that  it  would  interpret  §48  as 
covering  only  depictions  “of  wanton  cruelty  to  animals
designed  to  appeal  to  a  prurient  interest  in  sex.”    See 
Statement  by  President  William  J.  Clinton  upon  Signing 
H.  R.  1887,  34  Weekly  Comp.  Pres.  Doc.  2557  (Dec.  9, 
1999).  No one suggests that the videos in this case fit that 
description.  The  Government’s  assurance  that  it  will 
apply §48 far more restrictively than its language provides
is  pertinent  only  as  an  implicit  acknowledgment  of  the
potential  constitutional  problems  with  a  more  natural 
reading.

Nor  can  we  rely  upon  the  canon  of  construction  that
“ambiguous  statutory  language  [should]  be  construed  to
avoid  serious  constitutional  doubts.”    FCC  v.  Fox  Televi-
sion  Stations,  Inc.,  556  U. S.  ___,  ___  (2009)  (slip  op.,  at 
12).  “[T]his Court may impose a limiting construction on a 
statute only if it is ‘readily susceptible’ to such a construc-
tion.”  Reno  v.  American  Civil  Liberties  Union,  521  U. S. 
844, 884 (1997).  We “ ‘will not rewrite a . . . law to conform 
it  to  constitutional  requirements,’ ”  id.,  at  884–885  (quot-