| United States v. Stevens | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued October 6, 2009 Decided April 20, 2010 | |
| Full case name | United States v. Robert J. Stevens |
| Docket no. | 08-769 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Motion to dismiss denied, No. 2:04-cr-00051-ANB (W.D. Pa. Nov. 10, 2004); defendant convicted; vacated, 533F.3d218 (3d Cir. 2008);cert. granted,556 U.S. 1181 (2010). |
| Holding | |
| Depictions of animal cruelty are not categorically unprotected by theFirst Amendment. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Roberts, joined by Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor |
| Dissent | Alito |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. I;18 U.S.C. § 48 | |
United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460 (2010), was a decision by theSupreme Court of the United States, which ruled that18 U.S.C. § 48,[1] a federal statute criminalizing the commercial production, sale, or possession of depictions of cruelty to animals, was an unconstitutional abridgment of theFirst Amendment right to freedom of speech.
After this ruling, the statute was revised by theAnimal Crush Video Prohibition Act of 2010 to have much more specific language indicating it was intended only to apply to "crush videos."
Robert J. Stevens, an author and small-time film producer who presented himself as an authority on pit bulls, compiled and sold videotapes showing dogfights. Though he did not participate in the dogfights, he received a 37-month sentence under a 1999 federal law that banned trafficking in "depictions of animal cruelty."[2]
Public Law No: 106-152 was a federal criminal statute that prohibited the knowing creation, sale, or possession of depictions ofcruelty to animals with the intention of placing the depiction in interstate or foreign commerce for commercial gain. The law had been enacted in 1999, primarily to target "crush videos," which depicted people crushing small animals to gratify asexual fetish. It excluded from prosecution "any depiction that has serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value." The language tracked the "Miller test," used by the U.S. Supreme Court to determine whether speech could be prosecuted for obscenity or was protected by the First Amendment.
In 2004, Stevens was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 48 for creating and selling three video tapes, two of which depictedpit bulls engaged indog fighting. The third tape depicted a pit bull attacking a domestic pig as part of the dog being trained to catch and kill wild hog and included "a gruesome depiction of a pit bull attacking the lower jaw of a domestic farm pig."[3]
Although Stevens' criminal prosecution concerned only three tapes, he had made $20,000 in two and a half years from selling nearly 700 videos.[4] Stevens was not accused of engaging in animal cruelty himself or of shooting the original footage from which the videos were created. However, the footage in each of the videos "is accompanied by introductions, narration and commentary by Stevens, as well as accompanying literature of which Stevens is the author."[5]
Stevens filed amotion to dismiss the indictment by arguing that the federal statute abridged his right to freedom of speech under the First Amendment. TheUnited States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania denied his motion in November 2004.[5] In January 2005, Stevens was convicted by a jury, after a deliberation of 45 minutes.[6]
Stevens appealed, and theUnited States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated his conviction, holding that 18 U.S.C. 48 violated the First Amendment. The court stated that dog fighting and the use of dogs to hunt hogs may be made illegal to protect animals from cruelty.
The government asked the Supreme Court of the United States to overturn the appellate court ruling by appealing the case to the High Court.[7] On April 20, 2009, the Supreme Court agreed to review the lower court's decision.[8] Oral arguments in the case were heard on October 6, 2009.[9]
Stevens' attorney, Washington, D.C., lawyerPatricia Millett, has written:
The notion that Congress can suddenly strip a broad swath of never-before-regulated speech of First Amendment protection and send its creators to federal prison, based on nothing more than an ad hoc balancing of the 'expressive value' of the speech against its 'societal costs' is entirely alien to constitutional jurisprudence and a dangerous threat to liberty.[10]
In June 2009 theAnimal Legal Defense Fund filed a brief in defense of the animals' interests. The brief encouraged the Court to recognize the protection of animals as a compelling government interest and to uphold Section 48.[11]
More than a dozen media outlets joined anamicus brief in support of Stevens, includingThe New York Times,National Public Radio, theAmerican Society of News Editors, theAssociation of Alternative Newsweeklies,Citizen Media Law Project,MediaNews Group, theNational Press Photographers Association, theNewspaper Association of America, theNewspaper Guild–Communications Workers of America,Outdoor Writers Association of America, theRadio-Television News Directors Association, theSociety of Environmental Journalists, and theSociety of Professional Journalists.[12]
On April 20, 2010, the Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court ruling in an 8–1 decision written by Chief JusticeRoberts, with JusticeAlito dissenting.[13][14] The Court found that 18. U.S.C. §48 was substantially overbroad and so was invalid under theFirst Amendment to the United States Constitution.[14]
Alito dissented,[14] arguing that "(t)he most relevant of our prior decisions isFerber, 458 U. S. 747 (1982), which concerned child pornography. The Court there held that child pornography is not protected speech, and I believe thatFerber's reasoning dictates a similar conclusion here."[15]
On April 21, one day after the Supreme Court struck down the law, its original sponsor, RepresentativeElton Gallegly (R-CA) introduced a new bill with much more specific language, indicating it was intended only to apply to "crush videos."[16] PresidentBarack Obama signed the bill into law on December 9, 2010.[17]
