Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-769.pdf
Page Number: 30.0

6 

UNITED STATES v. STEVENS 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

n. 24.  See  also  Williams,  supra,  at  307  (STEVENS,  J., 
concurring)  (“[T]o  the  extent  the  statutory  text  alone  is
unclear, our duty to avoid constitutional objections makes 
it especially appropriate to look beyond the text in order to
ascertain the intent of its drafters”). 

Applying  this  canon,  I  would  hold  that  §48  does  not 
apply to depictions of hunting.  First, because §48 targets 
depictions  of  “animal  cruelty,”  I  would  interpret  that
term to apply only to depictions involving acts of animal
cruelty  as defined  by applicable state  or  federal  law,  not 
to depictions of acts that happen to be illegal for reasons
having  nothing  to  do  with  the  prevention  of  animal  cru-
elty.  See ante, at 12–13 (interpreting “[t]he text of §48(c)”
to  ban  a  depiction  of  “the  humane  slaughter  of  a  stolen 
cow”).  Virtually all state laws prohibiting animal cruelty 
either  expressly  define  the  term  “animal”  to  exclude 
wildlife or else specifically exempt lawful hunting activi-
ties,3  so the statutory prohibition set forth in §48(a) may 
reasonably  be  interpreted  not  to  reach  most  if  not  all 
hunting depictions. 

Second, even if the hunting of wild animals were other-
wise  covered  by  §48(a),  I  would  hold  that  hunting  depic-
tions fall within the exception in §48(b) for depictions that 
have  “serious”  (i.e.,  not  “trifling”4)  “scientific,”  “educa-

—————— 

3 See Appendix, infra (citing statutes); B. Wagman, S. Waisman, & P.
Frasch, Animal Law: Cases and Materials 92 (4th ed. 2010) (“Most anti-
cruelty  laws  also  include  one  or  more  exemptions,”  which  often  “ex-
clud[e]  from  coverage  (1)  whole  classes  of  animals,  such  as  wildlife  or
farm  animals,  or  (2)  specific  activities,  such  as  hunting”);  Note,  Eco-
nomics  and  Ethics  in  the  Genetic  Engineering  of  Animals,  19  Harv. 
J. L. & Tech. 413, 432 (2006) (“Not  surprisingly, state laws relating to
the  humane  treatment  of  wildlife,  including  deer,  elk,  and  waterfowl, 
are virtually non-existent”). 

4 Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 2073 (1976); Random
House Dictionary of the English Language 1303 (1966).  While the term 
“serious”  may  also  mean  “weighty”  or  “important,”  ibid.,  we  should 
adopt the former definition if necessary to avoid unconstitutionality.