Abstract

Robert Stevens was indicted for marketing dog-fighting videos in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 48, a law criminalizing depictions of animals being "intentionally mutilated, tortured, wounded, or killed..." The law aimed principally at "crush videos," but extended to dog-fighting as well. Stevens challenged the law’s constitutionality and the Supreme Court eventually struck it down. This article explores whether the Stevens decision will have lasting implications for animal cruelty jurisprudence. It argues that the answer is “maybe, but probably not.” In Stevens, the Court skirted the question of whether preventing animal cruelty can rise to the level of compelling state interest. Ironically, its avoidance of the issue may constitute a net positive for animal advocacy.