PointofLaw.com
 Subscribe Subscribe   Find us on Twitter Follow POL on Twitter  
   
 
   

 

 

Supreme Court Strikes Down Stolen Valor Act

| No Comments



In 2007, Xavier Alvarez introduced himself at a public meeting as a recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor, the United States' highest military award for bravery. But Alvarez - a habitual prevaricator who lied about everything from playing professional hockey to marrying a Mexican starlet - had not been awarded the medal, and was indicted under the Stolen Valor Act. The Act made it a crime for anyone to "falsely represent" that he or she had been awarded a military medal. Last week, the Supreme Court agreed that the statute was an impermissible restriction of speech, and invalidated it under the First Amendment. In an opinion joined by three other Justices, Justice Kennedy accepted the government's argument that the statute protected the important interest of preserving the integrity and purpose of the military medal system, but held that it failed to meet the "exacting scrutiny" required under the First Amendment. Justice Kennedy noted the government's argument that the Court had found no First Amendment protection for false statements in other contexts, including defamation, but found no categorical exception from First Amendment protection for false statements. Generally, the restrictions on false speech are tied to some injury, while the Stolen Valor Act "targets falsity and nothing more." Justices Breyer and Kagan provided the swing votes, but reached their decision applying intermediate scrutiny. Specifically, Justice Breyer held that the statute violated the First Amendment because its objective could be met in a less burdensome way; for example, by a "more finely tailored statute" requiring a showing of specific harm or materiality. Finally, Justice Alito, joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas, dissented, writing that the speech at issue has "no value," and that "proscribing [it] does not chill any valuable speech."

Leave a comment

Once submitted, the comment will first be reviewed by our editors and is not guaranteed to be published. Point of Law editors reserve the right to edit, delete, move, or mark as spam any and all comments. They also have the right to block access to any one or group from commenting or from the entire blog. A comment which does not add to the conversation, runs off on an inappropriate tangent, or kills the conversation may be edited, moved, or deleted.

The views and opinions of those providing comments are those of the author of the comment alone, and even if allowed onto the site do not reflect the opinions of Point of Law bloggers or the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research or any employee thereof. Comments submitted to Point of Law are the sole responsibility of their authors, and the author will take full responsibility for the comment, including any asserted liability for defamation or any other cause of action, and neither the Manhattan Institute nor its insurance carriers will assume responsibility for the comment merely because the Institute has provided the forum for its posting.

Related Entries:

 

 


Isaac Gorodetski
Project Manager,
Center for Legal Policy at the
Manhattan Institute
igorodetski@manhattan-institute.org

Katherine Lazarski
Press Officer,
Manhattan Institute
klazarski@manhattan-institute.org

 

Published by the Manhattan Institute

The Manhattan Insitute's Center for Legal Policy.