Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts emphasized that depictions of animal cruelty should not be considered as falling outside the protection of the First Amendment. He pointed out that while laws prohibiting animal cruelty have a long history in the United States, “we are unaware of any similar tradition excluding depictions of animal cruelty.” Citing Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union (200), Roberts elaborated on the expansive protections offered by the First Amendment. He wrote, “[a]s a general matter, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.”

Roberts also critiqued the government’s argument that the law targets specific forms of animal cruelty depictions, noting that their interpretation of the exceptions clause was overly broad and unrealistic. Particularly, he highlighted that many depictions such as hunting, writing “[m]ost hunting videos, for example, are not obviously instructional in nature, except in the sense that all life is a lesson.” Roberts clarified that the decision did not delve into the constitutionality of a law narrowly focused on extreme forms of animal cruelty, but rather deemed Section 48 to be excessively broad in its reach, thus invalidating it on those grounds. He concluded, “[w]e hold only that §48 is not so limited but is instead substantially overbroad.”