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."
Supreme Court Strikes Down Stolen Valor Act
- On the Supreme Court cert docket (II): Limelight v. Akamai
- The Bond That Ties: A Case-Study in Federalism
- The Unconscionability of California's "Amendable" Arbitration Agreements
- TLI Update: Supreme Court To Hear Patent Troll Cases
- Businessweek on class actions
- In the Matter of McCutcheon: The Merits of Campaign-Finance "Aggregation"
- "A Facebook Deal That Needs Unfriending"
- The cy pres morass and In re BankAmerica Corp. Securities Litigation
- CEI, Cato, and PLF weigh in on Mount Holly
- Marek v. Lane & Dry Max Pampers in today's NY Times
- Epstein on the pro-business Supreme Court myth
- Supreme Court Ethics Act of 2013
- Cy pres in SCOTUS? Facebook Beacon settlement certiorari petition
- Recess Appointments Update
- Expense of the death penalty III
Center for Legal Policy at the