---

News Tips

Law professor available to comment on Supreme Court cases

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Oct. 6, 2009

BLOOMINGTON, Ind. -- The U.S. Supreme Court has begun its 2009-10 term and is hearing arguments in two cases this week. Indiana University Maurer School of Law Professor Dan Conkle is available to comment on both.

Arguments in United States v. Stevens will be heard today (Oct. 6). The case tests the government's ability to ban depictions of animal cruelty, including dogfighting, as a way to prohibit animal torture. Salazar v. Buono, to be heard on Wednesday (Oct. 7), involves the erection of a cross on federal land in the Mojave National Preserve in California.

On United States v. Stevens:
"This is a fascinating case, raising the question of whether photographic depictions of animal cruelty -- including, but not limited to 'crush videos' (where animals are crushed to satisfy a fetish) -- are unprotected by the First Amendment," Conkle said. "The Supreme Court previously has recognized a few discrete categories of 'unprotected speech,' including 'fighting words,' obscenity, and child pornography, reasoning that the speech has very little value and that the government's competing interests are sufficient to justify its suppression. Whether the Court will extend that reasoning here remains to be seen. The statute specifically excludes depictions of animal cruelty that have 'serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value,' and the government argues that depictions of animal cruelty should be treated like child pornography. But the lower court found that the analogy to child pornography was misplaced and that law was too broadly written."

On Salazar v. Buono:
"This case brings the issue of religious symbols on public property back to the Supreme Court," Conkle said. "In previous cases, the Court has addressed Christmas displays and the Ten Commandments, issuing a series of deeply divided and controversial rulings. The twist here is that the government has attempted to avoid the Establishment Clause challenge by transferring the property to a private party. The Supreme Court could use the case to revisit the general question of Establishment Clause limitations on religious symbolism, or it could rule much more narrowly, focusing either on the question of whether the government's proposed land transfer successfully eliminates the Establishment Clause problem or on the procedural question of whether the challenger has legal 'standing to sue.'"

Conkle is the Robert H. McKinney Professor of Law and an adjunct professor of religious studies. At the IU Maurer School of Law, he teaches constitutional law, the First Amendment, and law and religion. Conkle is the author of Constitutional Law: The Religion Clauses, Second Edition, which was published earlier this year by Foundation Press. He can be reached at 812-855-4331 or conkle@indiana.edu.

---

---