This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
Petitioner contends that Section 48 is a narrowly targeted restriction that the Third Circuit struck down without applying overbreadth analysis.
According to Ms. Millett, a properly drawn law could very well survive strict scrutiny.
Background and question before the Court
According to Petitioner, petitioner states that Section 48 of Title 18 was enacted to target depictions of actual animal cruelty.
Justice Kennedy asked whether the statute might be overbroad because prosecutors have been restrained.
What each side argues
Petitioner (United States)
Mr. Katyal argues that Congress could regulate a market that drives violent behavior, such as a snuff video market.
Respondent (Robert J. Stevens)
Ms. Millett argues that a properly drawn law could survive strict scrutiny.
According to Ms. Millett, ms. Millett suggests the statute could be narrowly tailored to fit within an unprotected category of speech such as obscenity.
What happened at oral argument
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 9c17fae9b69bdb8db918-r1-44a17a618bcb25f0.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 23, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.