Justices will hear case on animal cruelty and freedom of speech (April 20, 2009)
The Supreme Court will review a circuit court decision striking down a federal animal cruelty law as a violation of the First Amendment.
In 2004, a jury on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania convicted Robert Stevens of Virginia on three counts of knowingly selling depictions of animal cruelty, with the intention of placing them in interstate commerce for commercial gain, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 48. He was sentenced to 37 months of imprisonment, to be followed by three years of supervised release.
In 18 U.S.C. 48, Congress made it a criminal offense to create, sell or possess certain depictions of animal cruelty in interstate commerce. In particular, Section 48 of the 1999 law prohibits “knowingly creat[ing], sell[ing], or possess[ing] a depicti[on of animal cruelty,” done “with the intention of placing that depiction in interstate or foreign commerce for commercial gain.”
While all 50 states and the District of Columbia outlaw animal cruelty, the federal law focuses on banning depictions of it.
In July 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit voted 10 to 3 to vacate Stevens' conviction on the ground that Section 48 is unconstitutional on its face.
“Preventing cruelty to animals, although an exceedingly worthy goal, simply does not implicate interests of the same magnitude as protecting children from physical and psychological harm,” the majority held.
In asking the U.S. Supreme Court to take the case, the government said the ban was similar to others upheld by the court.
“Like other forms of unprotected speech, such as child pornography, depictions of the intentional infliction of suffering on vulnerable creatures play no essential role in the expression of ideas,” wrote then-Solicitor General Gregory Garre.
Separately, the Humane Society of the United States filed a friend-of-the-court brief, urging the justices to review the law.
On April 20, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
Question presented: Is 18 U.S.C. 48, on depictions of animal cruelty, facially invalid under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment?