Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-769.pdf
Page Number: 16

12 

UNITED STATES v. STEVENS 

Opinion of the Court 

assumption.  See  post,  at  6,  9.)  The  Government  bases 
this  argument  on  the  definiendum,  “depiction  of  animal 
cruelty,” cf. Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U. S. 1, 11 (2004), and 
on  “ ‘the  commonsense  canon  of  noscitur  a  sociis.’ ”    Reply
Brief  7  (quoting  Williams,  553  U. S.,  at  294).    As  that 
canon recognizes, an ambiguous term may be “given more 
precise content by the neighboring words with which it is
associated.” 
Ibid.  Likewise,  an  unclear  definitional 
phrase may take meaning from the term to be defined, see 
Leocal,  supra,  at  11  (interpreting  a  “ ‘substantial  risk’ ”  of
the  “us[e]”  of  “physical  force”  as  part  of  the  definition  of
“ ‘crime of violence’ ”). 

But  the  phrase  “wounded  . . .  or  killed”  at  issue  here 
contains little ambiguity.  The Government’s opening brief 
properly  applies  the  ordinary  meaning  of  these  words, 
stating  for  example  that  to  “ ‘kill’  is  ‘to  deprive  of  life.’ ”  
Brief  for  United  States  14  (quoting  Webster’s  Third  New 
International  Dictionary  1242  (1993)).    We  agree  that
“wounded”  and  “killed”  should  be  read  according  to  their 
ordinary meaning.  Cf. Engine Mfrs. Assn. v. South Coast 
Air  Quality  Management  Dist.,  541  U. S.  246,  252  (2004).
Nothing about that meaning requires cruelty.

While  not  requiring  cruelty,  §48  does  require  that  the
depicted  conduct  be  “illegal.”    But  this  requirement  does
not  limit  §48  along  the  lines  the  Government  suggests.
There  are  myriad  federal  and  state  laws  concerning  the
proper  treatment  of  animals,  but  many  of  them  are  not 
designed  to  guard  against  animal  cruelty.    Protections  of 
endangered species, for example, restrict even the humane
“wound[ing]  or  kill[ing]”  of  “living  animal[s].”    §48(c)(1).
Livestock  regulations  are  often  designed  to  protect  the
health  of  human  beings,  and  hunting  and  fishing  rules 
(seasons,  licensure,  bag  limits,  weight  requirements)  can 
be designed to raise revenue, preserve animal populations,
or prevent accidents.  The text of §48(c) draws no distinc-
tion  based  on  the  reason  the  intentional  killing  of  an