Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-769.pdf
Page Number: 18.0

14 

UNITED STATES v. STEVENS 

Opinion of the Court 

Association  et al.  as  Amici  Curiae  9–10.  The  demand  for 
hunting  depictions  exceeds  the  estimated  demand  for
crush  videos  or  animal  fighting  depictions  by  several
orders of magnitude.  Compare ibid. and Brief for National 
Rifle  Association  of  America,  Inc.,  as  Amicus  Curiae  12 
(hereinafter  NRA  Brief)  (estimating  that  hunting  maga-
zines alone account for $135 million in annual retail sales)
with  Brief  for  United  States  43–44,  46  (suggesting  $1 
million  in  crush  video  sales  per  year,  and  noting  that 
Stevens  earned  $57,000  from  his  videos).    Nonetheless, 
because  the  statute  allows  each  jurisdiction  to  export  its 
laws  to  the  rest  of  the  country,  §48(a)  extends  to  any
magazine  or  video  depicting  lawful  hunting,  so  long  as 
that depiction is sold within the Nation’s Capital. 

Those seeking to comply with the law thus face a bewil-
dering maze of regulations from at least 56 separate juris-
dictions.  Some States permit hunting with crossbows, Ga. 
Code  Ann.  §27–3–4(1)  (2007);  Va.  Code  Ann.  §29.1–
519(A)(6) (Lexis 2008 Cum. Supp.), while others forbid it,
Ore. Admin. Reg. 635–065–0725 (2009), or restrict it only 
to  the  disabled,  N. Y.  Envir.  Conserv.  Law  Ann.  §11–
0901(16) (West 2005).  Missouri allows the “canned” hunt-
ing  of  ungulates  held  in  captivity,  Mo.  Code  Regs.  Ann.,
tit.  3,  10–9.560(1),  but  Montana  restricts  such  hunting  to
certain  bird  species,  Mont.  Admin.  Rule  12.6.1202(1)
(2007).  The sharp-tailed grouse  may be hunted in Idaho, 
but  not  in  Washington.    Compare  Idaho  Admin.  Code 
§13.01.09.606  (2009)  with  Wash.  Admin.  Code  §232–28–
342 (2009).

The  disagreements  among  the  States—and  the  “com-
monwealth[s],  territor[ies],  or  possession[s]  of  the  United 
States,” 18 U. S. C. §48(c)(2)—extend well beyond hunting.
State agricultural regulations permit different methods of 
livestock slaughter in different places or as applied to differ-
ent  animals.    Compare,  e.g.,  Fla.  Stat.  §828.23(5)  (2007)
(excluding  poultry  from  humane  slaughter  requirements)