Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-769.pdf
Page Number: 17.0

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

13 

Opinion of the Court 

animal  is  made  illegal,  and  includes,  for  example,  the 
humane slaughter of a stolen cow.4 

What  is  more,  the  application  of  §48  to  depictions  of 
illegal conduct extends to conduct that is illegal in only a 
single  jurisdiction.  Under  subsection  (c)(1),  the  depicted
conduct  need  only  be  illegal  in  “the  State  in  which  the 
creation,  sale,  or  possession  takes  place,  regardless  of
whether  the  . . .  wounding  . . .  or  killing  took  place  in 
[that]  State.”    A  depiction  of  entirely  lawful  conduct  runs
afoul  of  the  ban  if  that  depiction  later  finds  its  way  into
another  State  where  the  same  conduct  is  unlawful.    This 
provision  greatly  expands  the  scope  of  §48,  because  al-
though there may be “a broad societal consensus” against 
cruelty  to  animals,  Brief  for  United  States  2,  there  is
substantial  disagreement  on  what  types  of  conduct  are
properly  regarded  as  cruel.    Both  views  about  cruelty  to 
animals  and  regulations  having  no  connection  to  cruelty
vary widely from place to place. 

In  the  District  of  Columbia,  for  example,  all  hunting  is
unlawful.  D. C. Munic. Regs., tit. 19, §1560 (2009).  Other 
jurisdictions permit or encourage hunting, and there is an
enormous  national  market  for  hunting-related  depictions 
in  which  a  living  animal  is  intentionally  killed.    Hunting
periodicals have circulations in the hundreds of thousands
or  millions,  see  Mediaweek,  Sept.  29,  2008,  p. 28,  and 
hunting  television  programs,  videos,  and  Web  sites  are 
equally popular, see Brief for Professional Outdoor Media 

—————— 

4 The  citations  in  the  dissent’s  appendix  are  beside  the  point.  The 
cited  statutes  stand  for  the  proposition  that  hunting  is  not  covered  by
animal cruelty laws.  But the reach of §48 is, as we have explained, not 
restricted  to  depictions  of  conduct  that  violates  a  law  specifically 
directed at animal cruelty.  It simply requires that the depicted conduct 
be  “illegal.”  §48(c)(1).  The  Government  implicitly  admits  as  much, 
arguing  that  “instructional  videos  for  hunting”  are  saved  by  the  stat-
ute’s exceptions clause, not that they fall outside the prohibition in the
first place.  Reply Brief 6.