Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-769.pdf
Page Number: 8

4 

UNITED STATES v. STEVENS 

Opinion of the Court 

District  Court  denied  the  motion.    It  held  that  the  depic-
tions  subject  to  §48,  like  obscenity  or  child  pornography, 
are  categorically  unprotected  by  the  First  Amendment. 
2:04–cr–00051–ANB (WD Pa., Nov. 10, 2004), App. to Pet.
for Cert. 65a–71a.  It went on to hold that §48 is not sub-
stantially  overbroad,  because  the  exceptions  clause  suffi-
ciently  narrows  the  statute  to  constitutional  applications. 
Id., at 71a–75a.  The jury convicted Stevens on all counts, 
and  the  District  Court  sentenced  him  to  three  concurrent 
sentences  of  37  months’  imprisonment,  followed  by  three 
years of supervised release.  App. 37.

The  en  banc  Third  Circuit,  over  a  three-judge  dissent, 
declared  §48  facially  unconstitutional  and  vacated  Ste-
vens’s  conviction.  533  F. 3d  218.    The  Court  of  Appeals
first  held  that  §48  regulates  speech  that  is  protected  by
the  First  Amendment.    The  Court  declined  to  recognize  a
new  category  of  unprotected  speech  for  depictions  of  ani-
mal  cruelty,  id.,  at  224,  and  n. 6,  and  rejected  the  Gov-
ernment’s analogy between animal cruelty depictions and
child pornography, id., at 224–232. 

The Court  of Appeals  then held that §48 could not sur-
vive  strict  scrutiny  as  a  content-based  regulation  of  pro-
tected speech.  Id., at 232.  It found that the statute lacked 
a  compelling  government  interest  and  was  neither  nar-
rowly  tailored  to  preventing  animal  cruelty  nor  the  least 
restrictive means of doing so.  Id., at 232–235.  It therefore 
held §48 facially invalid. 

In  an  extended  footnote,  the  Third  Circuit  noted  that 
§48 “might also be unconstitutionally overbroad,” because 
it  “potentially  covers  a  great  deal  of  constitutionally  pro-
tected speech” and “sweeps [too] widely” to be limited only 
by  prosecutorial  discretion.    Id.,  at  235,  n. 16.    But  the 
Court  of  Appeals  declined  to  rest  its  analysis  on  this
ground.

We granted certiorari.  556 U. S. ___ (2009).