High court to rule on Stolen Valor Act
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court will decide whether a law making it a crime to lie about having received military medals is constitutional.
The justices said today they would consider the validity of the Stolen Valor Act, which passed Congress with overwhelming support in 2006. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the law on First Amendment free-speech grounds and appeals courts in Colorado, Georgia and Missouri are considering similar cases.
The Obama administration is arguing that the law is reasonable because it applies only to instances in which the speaker intends to portray himself as a medal recipient. Previous high court rulings have limited First Amendment protection for false statements.
The case the high court agreed to hear, U.S. v. Alvarez, 11-210, concerns the government’s prosecution of Xavier Alvarez of Pomona, Calif. A member of the local water district board, Alvarez said at a public meeting in 2007 that he was a retired Marine who had received the Medal of Honor, the nation’s highest military decoration. In fact, he had never served in the military.
He was indicted and pleaded guilty with the understanding that he would challenge the law’s constitutionality in his appeal. He was sentenced under the Stolen Valor Act to more than 400 hours of community service at a veterans hospital and fined $5,000.
A panel of the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit voted 2-1 to strike down the law. The majority said there was no evidence that lies such as the one told by Alvarez harm anybody and no compelling reason to make a crime out of them.
In a dissent, Judge Jay Bybee said his colleagues should have followed previous Supreme Court rulings holding that false statements are not entitled to First Amendment protection.
The 9th Circuit refused the government’s request to have the case heard again by a larger panel of judges. 9th Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, agreeing with the majority, said people often tell lies about themselves in day-to-day social interactions. He said it would be “terrifying” if people could be prosecuted for merely telling lies.
But seven appellate judges said they would have heard the case, suggesting that Alvarez’s conviction should have been upheld.
The law had been the latest congressional effort to try to keep people from wearing medals they did not earn. But it was the first time that lawmakers made it a crime for someone to claim falsely that he had been awarded a medal.
The law has led to dozens of arrests at a time when veterans coming home from wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are being embraced as heroes. Many of the cases involve men who were not accused of trying to profit from their claims. Almost everyone convicted under the law has been ordered to perform community service.
Arguments will take place early next year.
Meanwhile, government attorneys are appealing a ruling by a federal judge in Maryland who dismissed a criminal case against a Nebraska veteran accused of lying about his military record.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas DiGirolamo ruled in August that the Stolen Valor Act was unconstitutional and dismissed the case against Aaron Lawless, an Iraq War veteran from Gothenburg, the Lincoln Journal Star reported on Oct. 15, before the Supreme Court decided to hear the Alvarez case.
Court records filed in U.S. District Court in Greenbelt, Md., say Lawless claimed to have won four Purple Hearts, two Bronze Star Medals and a Silver Star Medal. As a result of those claims, gun manufacturer Glock gave Lawless an award in 2008 along with plane tickets to Las Vegas, hotel accommodations and two pistols.
But federal officials who investigated Lawless’ claims found they were false, according to a criminal complaint.
Previous: 9th Circuit panel backs law against medal fraud
Also see: FAC scholar shares thoughts on Stolen Valor case
Rewrite may save Stolen Valor Act
Tags: Associated Press, false, Stolen Valor Act, U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court docket
Let Us Know What You Think
Note: We cannot provide legal advice.
Ken Paulson is president and chief executive officer/First Amendment Center. Previously, Paulson served as editor and senior vice president/news of USA Today and USATODAY.com.
Gene Policinski, senior vice president and executive director of the First Amendment Center, is a veteran journalist whose career has included work in newspapers, radio, television and online.
John Seigenthaler founded the First Amendment Center in 1991 with the mission of creating national discussion, dialogue and debate about First Amendment rights and values.
Dr. Charles C. Haynes is director of the Religious Freedom Education Project at the Newseum. He writes and speaks extensively on religious liberty and religion in American public life.
David L. Hudson Jr. is a scholar at the First Amendment Center. Hudson writes for firstamendmentcenter.org and for other publications devoted to First Amendment issues.
Tiffany Villager is director/First Amendment studies at the First Amendment Center, which she joined in 1993. She also served as the center’s research manager and research coordinator, and developed the center’s library.
