Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-769.pdf
Page Number: 33

Cite as:  559 U. S. ____ (2010) 

9 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

tially  overbroad,  for  two  reasons.  First,  as  explained
above,  §48  can  reasonably  be  construed  to  apply  only  to
depictions  involving  acts  of  animal  cruelty  as  defined  by
applicable  state  or  federal  law,  and  anti-cruelty  laws  do 
not ban the sorts of acts depicted in the Court’s hypotheti-
cals.  See,  e.g.,  Idaho  Code  §25–3514  (Lexis  2000)  (“No
part  of  this  chapter  [prohibiting  cruelty  to  animals]  shall 
be  construed  as  interfering  with  or  allowing  interference
with  . . .  [t]he  humane  slaughter  of  any  animal  normally 
and commonly raised as food or for production of fiber . . . 
[or]  [n]ormal  or  accepted  practices  of  . . .  animal  hus-
bandry”); Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21–4310(b) (2007) (“The provi-
sions of this section shall not apply to . . . with respect to
farm  animals,  normal  or  accepted  practices  of  animal 
husbandry,  including  the  normal  and  accepted  practices 
for  the  slaughter  of  such  animals”);  Md.  Crim.  Law  Code
Ann.  §10–603  (Lexis  2002)  (sections  prohibiting  animal
cruelty  “do not apply to . . . customary and normal veteri-
nary  and  agricultural  husbandry  practices,  including
dehorning, castration, tail docking, and limit feeding”).

Second, nothing in the record suggests that any one has 
ever created, sold, or possessed for sale a depiction of the 
slaughter  of  food  animals  or  of  the  docking  of  the  tails  of
dairy cows that would not easily qualify under the excep-
tion  set  out  in  §48(b).    Depictions  created  to  show  proper
methods  of  slaughter  or  tail-docking  would  presumably 
have serious “educational” value, and depictions created to 
focus  attention  on  methods  thought  to  be  inhumane  or 
otherwise  objectionable  would  presumably  have  either
serious  “educational”  or  “journalistic”  value  or  both.    In 
short,  the  Court’s  examples  of  depictions  involving  the 
docking  of  tails  and  humane  slaughter  do  not  show  that
§48  suffers  from  any  overbreadth,  much  less  substantial 
overbreadth. 

The  Court  notes,  finally,  that  cockfighting,  which  is
illegal in all States, is still legal in Puerto Rico, ante, at 15,