WASHINGTON, D.C.—"A painting is a thing which requires as much cunning, rascality, and viciousness as the perpetration of a crime," Edgar Degas once wrote. Now arts groups say that a law designed to prohibit the distribution of images of animal cruelty could make the French impressionist’s fanciful comparison a stark reality, criminalizing legitimate pieces of art.

The College Art Association (CAA) and the National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC) have submitted briefs to the Supreme Court, which will hear a case on the subject on Oct. 6. The CAA argues in its filing that works by artists like Hermann Nitsch, who uses the entrails of lambs in his ritualistic performances, are "no more likely to be appreciated than that of Duchamp or Warhol," two artists that faced widespread criticism before later popular success.

Numerous animal rights groups and 26 states have filed briefs in support of the law. Some argue that an exception in the law for images of "serious value" should be enough to protect works of artistic expression. The CAA says that, because the law fails to define such value, it does not adequately safeguard artists.

Works relating to animal cruelty have been a source of public controversy recently. New York Times critic Ken Johnson said that a work showing animals fighting and killing each other by Adel Abdessemed, featured in his exhibition at David Zwirner earlier this year, was "the most appalling and evil work I have ever seen."

Read more at the Art Newspaper.