UNITED STATES V. STEVENS 130 S.Ct. 1577 (2010) CASE BRIEF

UNITED STATES V. STEVENS

130 S.Ct. 1577 (2010)

NATURE OF THE CASE: This was a dispute over whether a statute that prohibits depictions of animal cruelty is consistent with the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment.

FACTS: Congress passed a law that establishes a criminal penalty of up to five years in prison for anyone who knowingly 'creates, sells, or possesses a depiction of animal cruelty,' if done 'for commercial gain' in interstate or foreign commerce. 48(a). Section 48 focused primarily on the interstate market for 'crush videos.' There were videos featuring the intentional torture and killing of helpless animals, including cats, dogs, monkeys, mice, and hamsters. Crush videos often depict women slowly crushing animals to death 'with their bare feet or while wearing high heeled shoes,' sometimes while 'talking to the animals in a kind of dominatrix patter' over '[t]he cries and squeals of the animals, obviously in great pain.' Stevens (D) ran a business, 'Dogs of Velvet and Steel,' where 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. A third video, Catch Dogs and Country Living, 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. D was indicted on three counts of violating 48. D argued that 48 is facially invalid under the First Amendment. The District Court denied the motion. D was convicted by the jury. The en banc Third Circuit, over a three-judge dissent, declared 48 facially unconstitutional and vacated D's conviction. It held that 48 regulates speech that is protected by the First Amendment. It then held that 48 could not survive strict scrutiny as a content-based regulation of protected speech. It found that the statute lacked a compelling government interest and was neither narrowly tailored to preventing animal cruelty nor the least restrictive means of doing so. It held 48 facially invalid. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner