Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-769.pdf
Page Number: 4.0

4 

UNITED STATES v. STEVENS 

Syllabus 

ban  on  such  speech  would  satisfy  the  proper  level  of  scrutiny.    But 
the  Government  nowhere  extends  these  arguments  to  other  depic-
tions, such as hunting magazines and videos, that are presumptively
protected  by  the  First  Amendment  but  that  remain  subject  to  §48.
Nor does the Government seriously contest that these presumptively
impermissible  applications  of  §48  far  outnumber  any  permissible 
ones.  The Court therefore does not decide whether a statute limited 
to  crush  videos  or  other  depictions  of  extreme  animal  cruelty  would 
be constitutional.  Section 48 is not so limited but is instead substan-
tially  overbroad,  and  therefore  invalid  under  the  First  Amendment.
Pp. 19–20.   

533 F. 3d 218, affirmed. 

ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which STEVENS, 
SCALIA,  KENNEDY,  THOMAS,  GINSBURG,  BREYER,  and  SOTOMAYOR,  JJ., 
joined.  ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion.