Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-769.pdf
Page Number: 19.0

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

15 

Opinion of the Court 

with Cal. Food & Agric. Code Ann. §19501(b) (West 2001)
(including  some  poultry).  California  has  recently  banned
cutting  or  “docking”  the  tails  of  dairy  cattle,  which  other
States  permit.  2009  Cal.  Legis.  Serv.  Ch.  344  (S. B.  135) 
(West).  Even  cockfighting,  long  considered  immoral  in
much  of  America,  see  Barnes  v.  Glen  Theatre,  Inc.,  501 
U. S. 560, 575 (1991) (SCALIA, J., concurring in judgment), 
is legal in Puerto Rico, see 15 Laws P. R. Ann. §301 (Supp. 
2008); Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates v. Tourism Co. of 
P.  R.,  478  U. S.  328,  342  (1986),  and  was  legal  in  Louisi-
ana until 2008, see La. Stat. Ann. §14:102.23 (West) (effec-
tive  Aug.  15,  2008).    An  otherwise-lawful  image  of  any  of
these  practices,  if  sold  or  possessed  for  commercial  gain
within  a  State  that  happens  to  forbid  the  practice,  falls 
within the prohibition of §48(a). 

C 
The  only  thing  standing  between  defendants  who  sell
such  depictions  and  five  years  in  federal  prison—other
than the mercy of a prosecutor—is the statute’s exceptions
clause.  Subsection  (b)  exempts  from  prohibition  “any 
depiction  that  has  serious  religious,  political,  scientific,
educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value.”  The 
Government argues that this clause substantially narrows
the  statute’s  reach:  News  reports  about  animal  cruelty 
have  “journalistic”  value;  pictures  of  bullfights  in  Spain 
have  “historical”  value;  and  instructional  hunting  videos
have  “educational”  value.  Reply  Brief  6.    Thus,  the  Gov-
ernment argues, §48 reaches only crush videos, depictions 
of  animal  fighting  (other  than  Spanish  bullfighting,  see
Brief  for  United  States  47–48),  and  perhaps  other  depic-
tions of “extreme acts of animal cruelty.”  Id., at 41. 

The Government’s attempt to narrow the statutory ban,
however,  requires  an  unrealistically  broad  reading  of  the
exceptions  clause.  As  the  Government  reads  the  clause, 
any material with “redeeming societal value,” id., at 9, 16,