Abstract
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.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
