Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-769.pdf
Page Number: 7.0

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

3 

Opinion of the Court 

fetish who find them sexually arousing or otherwise excit-
ing.”  Id.,  at  2–3.  The  acts  depicted  in  crush  videos  are
typically prohibited by the animal cruelty laws enacted by
all  50  States  and  the  District  of  Columbia.    See  Brief  for 
United States 25, n. 7 (listing statutes).  But crush videos 
rarely  disclose  the  participants’  identities,  inhibiting 
prosecution of the underlying conduct.  See H. R. Rep., at 
3; accord, Brief for State of Florida et al. as Amici Curiae 
11. 

This  case,  however,  involves  an  application  of  §48  to 
depictions of animal fighting.  Dogfighting, for example, is 
unlawful in all 50 States and the District of Columbia, see 
Brief for United States 26, n. 8 (listing statutes), and has
been restricted by federal law since 1976.  Animal Welfare 
Act  Amendments  of  1976,  §17,  90  Stat.  421,  7  U. S. C. 
§2156.    Respondent  Robert  J.  Stevens  ran  a  business,
“Dogs  of  Velvet  and  Steel,”  and  an  associated  Web  site,
through  which  he  sold  videos  of  pit  bulls  engaging  in
dogfights  and  attacking  other  animals.    Among  these 
videos  were  Japan  Pit  Fights  and  Pick-A-Winna:  A  Pit 
Bull Documentary, which include contemporary footage of 
dogfights in Japan (where such conduct is allegedly legal) 
as  well  as  footage  of  American  dogfights  from  the  1960’s
and  1970’s.2   A  third  video,  Catch  Dogs  and  Country  Liv-
ing, depicts the use of pit bulls to hunt wild boar, as well 
as  a  “gruesome”  scene  of  a  pit  bull  attacking  a  domestic 
farm pig.  533 F. 3d 218, 221 (CA3 2008) (en banc).  On the 
basis of these videos, Stevens was indicted on three counts 
of violating §48.

Stevens  moved  to  dismiss  the  indictment,  arguing  that 
§48  is  facially  invalid  under  the  First  Amendment.    The 

—————— 

2 The Government contends that these dogfights were unlawful at the 
time  they  occurred,  while  Stevens  disputes  the  assertion.    Reply  Brief 
for  United  States  25,  n. 14  (hereinafter  Reply  Brief);  Brief  for  Respon-
dent 44, n. 18.