Alito Supports Animal Cruelty Law with Human Sacrifice Hypothetical

In Supreme Court oral arguments today, most justices expressed constitutional doubts about a law that bans depictions of animal cruelty.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. was the exception, supporting the law with a hypothetical about human sacrifice, SCOTUSblog reports.

Lawyer Patricia Millett told the justices she saw a First Amendment violation in the law, which bars depictions of animal cruelty if the conduct is illegal where the video is sold. Congress could bar the illegal acts rather than their depiction, she argued.

Alito wanted to know whether Congress could write a law that would ban a TV channel devoted to “human sacrifice” in a line of questioning that Millett had “difficulty fending off,” the SCOTUSblog story says.

Alito’s example was among many “outrageous hypothetical questions” posed during the lively argument, USA Today reports. The justices' comments suggested that the law would not survive.

Millett represents Robert Stevens, a Virginia man convicted under the law for selling dogfight videos.

Alito said the law achieved its purpose by eliminating the market for “crush videos” showing women killing animals by crushing them with their bare feet or high-heeled shoes, according to the SCOTUSblog account.

Taking the other side, several justices posed hypotheticals suggesting the law reached too broadly. Justice Antonin Scalia wondered whether the law would ban videos of Spanish bullfights, while Justice John Paul Stevens wanted to know whether it banned images of hunters using a bow and arrow, according to USA Today.

Additional coverage:

Los Angeles Times: “Justices talk dog-fighting videos, 'Human Sacrifice Channel' ”

Bloomberg: "Animal Cruelty Law Questioned at U.S. Supreme Court"

Associated Press: “Court takes up free-speech case of pit bull videos”