From Dog Fighting to Human Sacrifices, Today’s Oral Arguments were Heated

I'm always curious what drives the Justices in their case selection. I know that significant legal issues are the biggest factor, but sometimes the facts at issue really stand out.

Take U.S. v. Stevens which was argued before the Court today. It's a First Amendment case built around the actions of a self-professed "dog lover" who was producing and selling dog fighting videotapes.

Robert J. Stevens of Pittsville Virginia was the first to be prosecuted under a 1999 law enacted by Congress criminalizing the sale of videotapes depicting animal cruelty. He was convicted of three counts. The Third Circuit, sitting en banc, struck down the law choosing not to carve out an exception to the First Amendment. The government had reportedly argued that images of animal cruelty were analogous to child pornography.

From what I hear, Justice Alito led the aggressive questioning in oral arguments today. Taking the argument over depictions of animal cruelty to an extreme Alito questioned whether Congress has the power to ban a "Human Sacrifice Channel" or an "Ethnic Cleansing Channel."

If you were in attendance or would like to write a more complete article for the Republican Lawyer Newsletter please send me an email.