Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-769.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2009 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued.
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

UNITED STATES v. STEVENS 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

No. 08–769.  Argued October 6, 2009—Decided April 20, 2010 

Congress  enacted  18  U. S. C.  §48  to  criminalize  the  commercial  crea-
tion, sale, or  possession of  certain depictions of animal  cruelty.  The 
statute addresses only portrayals of harmful acts, not the underlying 
conduct.  It applies to any visual or auditory depiction “in which a liv-
ing animal is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded, or
killed,”  if  that  conduct  violates  federal  or state  law  where  “the  crea-
tion,  sale,  or  possession  takes  place,”  §48(c)(1).    Another  clause  ex-
empts  depictions  with  “serious  religious,  political,  scientific,  educa-
tional,  journalistic,  historical,  or  artistic  value.” 
§48(b).  The 
legislative  background  of  §48  focused  primarily  on  “crush  videos,” 
which feature the torture and killing of helpless animals and are said
to  appeal  to  persons  with  a  specific  sexual  fetish.    Respondent  Ste-
vens was indicted under §48 for selling videos depicting dogfighting.
He  moved  to  dismiss,  arguing  that  §48  is  facially  invalid  under  the 
First  Amendment.    The  District  Court  denied  his  motion,  and  Ste-
vens was convicted.  The Third Circuit vacated the conviction and de-
clared  §48  facially  unconstitutional  as  a  content-based  regulation  of
protected speech. 

Held: Section §48  is  substantially  overbroad,  and  therefore  invalid  un-

der the First Amendment.  Pp. 5–20.

(a) Depictions  of  animal  cruelty  are  not,  as  a  class,  categorically
unprotected  by  the  First  Amendment.   Because  §48  explicitly  regu-
lates  expression  based  on  content,  it  is  “ ‘presumptively  invalid,’  . . . 
and  the  Government  bears  the  burden  to  rebut  that  presumption.” 
United  States  v.  Playboy  Entertainment  Group,  Inc.,  529  U. S.  803, 
817.    Since  its  enactment,  the  First  Amendment  has  permitted  re-
strictions on a few historic categories of speech—including obscenity, 
defamation,  fraud,  incitement,  and  speech  integral  to  criminal  con-