Find Court Cases > United States v. Stevens

United States v. Stevens

Case Date: 10/06/2009
Docket No: none

Facts of the Case 

Robert Stevens was convicted under 18 U.S.C. Section 48 in a Pennsylvania federal district court for "knowingly selling depictions of animal cruelty with the intention of placing those depictions in interstate commerce for commercial gain." His conviction stems from an investigation into the selling of videos related to illegal dog fighting. Mr. Stevens appealed his conviction arguing that 18 U.S.C. Section 48, on its face, was unconstitutional because it violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit agreed with Mr. Stevens and reversed his conviction, holding unconstitutional 18 U.S.C. Section 48. The court reasoned that the dog fighting videos he sold were protected speech and that 18 U.S.C. Section 48 did not serve a compelling governmental interest.

Read the Briefs for this Case
  • Brief Amicus Curiae of Animal Legal Defense Fund In Support of Petitioner
  • Brief of Amicus Curiae the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty To Animals In Support of Petitioner
  • Brief of Amicus Curiae the Humane Society of the United States In Support of Petitioner
  • Brief for Amicus Curiae Northwest Animal Rights Network In Support of Petitioner
  • Brief of Professional Outdoor Media Association, American Society of Media Photographers, North American Nature Photography Association, Pennsylvania Outdoor Writers Association, Southeastern Outdoor Press Association, And Texas Outdoor Writers Associatio
  • Brief of the Dkt Liberty Project, the American Civil Liberties Union, And the Center for Democracy And Technology, as Amici Curiae In Support of Respondent
  • Brief of Amicus Curiae National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc. In Support of Respondent
    • Question 

    Is 18 U.S.C. Section 48, on its face, unconstitutional under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment?

    Argument United States v. Stevens - Oral ArgumentFull Transcript Text  Download MP3United States v. Stevens - Opinion AnnouncementFull Transcript Text  Download MP3 Conclusion 

    Yes. The Supreme Court held that 18 U.S.C. § 48 is substantially overbroad, and therefore invalid under the First Amendment. With Chief Justice John G. Roberts writing for the majority, the Court reasoned that depictions of animal cruelty are not categorically unprotected by the First Amendment. The Court further reasoned that because a "substantial number" of § 48's applications are unconstitutional, the law is overbroad and, thus, invalid.

    Justice Samuel A. Alito dissented. He disagreed with the majority opinion arguing that § 48 was not intended to suppress speech, but rather to "prevent horrific acts of animal cruelty." He was concerned that the majority holding will practically legalize the sale of such videos and spur the resumption of their production.