United States v. Alvarez | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Argued February 22, 2012 Decided June 28, 2012 | |
Full case name | United States, Petitioner v. Xavier Alvarez |
Docket no. | 11-210 |
Argument | Oral argument |
Case history | |
Prior | Defendant's motion for dismissal rejected, unreported, n° CR-07-1035-RGK (C.D. Cal. 2008); reversed and remanded, 617 F.3d 1198 (9th Cir., 2009); rehearing en banc denied, 638 F.3d 666 (9th Cir., 2011); certiorari granted 565 U.S. ___ |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Plurality | Kennedy, joined by Roberts, Ginsburg, Sotomayor |
Concurrence | Breyer, joined by Kagan |
Dissent | Alito, joined by Scalia, Thomas |
United States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. ___ (2012), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Stolen Valor Act, 18 U.S.C. § 704, which criminalized false statements about having a military medal, is unconstitutional under the First Amendment's free speech protections. The law had been passed as an effort to stem instances where people falsely claimed to have won the medal in an attempt to protect the "valor" of those who really had. While a majority of the Supreme Court voted to strike down the law, only four justices held the proposition that false statements of speech were not an exception of the First Amendment.
Background
Stolen Valor Act
President George W. Bush signed the Stolen Valor Act of 2005, (18 U.S.C. § 704), into law on December 20, 2006.[1] The Act broadens previous provisions addressing the unauthorized wear, manufacture, or sale of any military decorations and medals by making it a misdemeanor to falsely represent oneself as having received any U.S. military decoration or medal.[2] If convicted, defendants may be imprisoned for up to six months, unless the decoration lied about is the Medal of Honor, in which case imprisonment could be up to one year.[3] Proponents in Congress argued that the law was passed to prevent impostors from "stealing the valor" of soldiers returning from engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan.[4]
Alvarez's statements
In 2007, Xavier Alvarez attended a meeting of the Three Valley Water District Board as a new member. He introduced himself by saying "I'm a retired marine of 25 years. I retired in the year 2001. Back in 1987, I was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. I got wounded many times by the same guy."[5][6]
As this statement was not true, Alvarez was indicted for violating the Stolen Valor Act.[7] The United States District Court for the Central District of California, the place where the trial was to occur, rejected Alvarez's claim that the Act was unconstitutional. This decision was reversed by a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit which held the law invalid.[8]
Rehearing by the entire panel of the Ninth Circuit (instead of just the three judges) was denied over the dissent of seven judges.[9] Judge Smith, one of the dissenters, argued that the panel "incorrectly rested its laurels on Supreme Court rulings in defamation cases that false facts did not receive First Amendment protections."[10] Smith argued that this was not a defamation case, because even if the act was intended to prevent injury to military personnel, "[t]he right against defamation belongs to natural persons, not to governmental institutions or symbols."[11]
The government appealed the Ninth Circuit's decision, which was subsequently granted by the Supreme Court in 2011.[12]
Supreme Court's decision
On 28 June 2012, a divided Supreme Court held that the Stolen Valor Act's prohibition against making false statements of having been awarded a military medal violated the First Amendment.[13][14] The justices voting to strike the law could not agree on a rationale.[15]
Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for a plurality consisting of himself, Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Sotomayor, said that false statements are not, by the sole reason of their falsity, excluded from First Amendment protection.[16] Justice Kennedy said that Alvarez's statement – which had harmed no one – was within the protection of the First Amendment, and, therefore, the statute had to be subjected to strict scrutiny, meaning that it had to be necessary to serve a compelling governmental interest and narrowly tailored to serve that interest. The statute failed that test, according to Justice Kennedy, because there was no proof that the public thought less of recipients of military medals because of the existence of charlatans who lied about having received them.[17] Justice Kennedy also said that the proper response to false statements about receiving medals was the issuance of true statements about those who had really earned medals and exposing those who lied about receiving them.[18]
Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for himself and Justice Kagan, eschewed a "strict categorical analysis" as typified by the strict scrutiny standard.[19] Instead, he set out "to examine the fit between statutory means and ends." Justice Breyer concluded that the statute was unconstitutional because "the statute works First Amendment harm, while the Government can achieve its legitimate objectives in less restrictive ways," such as "a more finely tailored statute."[20]
Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas, dissented.[21] They argued that false statements about military medals merit no First Amendment protection whatsoever, while recognizing that false statements may be protected when laws restricting them might chill otherwise protected speech.[22] However, the dissenters argued that the Stolen Valor Act does not implicate that concern because lying about alleged receipt of military honors does not relate to any protected expression, and the lies cause harm to those families and individuals who received these medals legitimately.[23]
Subsequent developments
Despite the ruling on the Stolen Valor Act, Alvarez remained in legal trouble due to allegations that he defrauded the government by falsely receiving health insurance benefits. He was convicted of misappropriation of public funds, grand theft, and insurance fraud in 2009 and sentenced to five years in state prison,[24] and was discharged in March 2012 from Calipatria State Prison.[25]
See also
Notes
- ^ Anne C. Mulkern (December 20, 2006). "Rep. Salazar's bill on falsely claiming medals now a law". Denver Post. Retrieved 2006-12-22.
- ^ United States v. Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. 1421, 586 (S. Ct. 2012).
- ^ Harvard Law Review 2012, p. 196.
- ^ Christian Davenport (May 10, 2010). "One man's database helps uncover cases of falsified valor". Washington Post. Retrieved 2011-12-20.
- ^ United States v. Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. 1421, 585 (S. Ct. 2012).
- ^ 617 F. 3d 1198, 1201-1202 (CA9 2010).
- ^ United States v. Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. 1421, 585-586 (S. Ct. 2012).
- ^ 617 F. 3d 1218 (CA9 2010).
- ^ 638 F. 3d 666 (2011).
- ^ 638 F. 3d 666, 669 (2011).
- ^ 617 F. 3d at 1205
- ^ Harvard Law Review 2012, p. 196-197.
- ^ Holland, Jesse J. (June 28, 2012). "Court tosses law about false claims on medals". San Francisco Chronicle. Associated Press.
- ^ United States v. Alvarez (slip opinion), 567 U.S. ___ (2012). Retrieved on July 1, 2012.
- ^ Harvard Law Review 2012, p. 197.
- ^ United States v. Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. 1421, 582 (S. Ct. 2012).
- ^ United States v. Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. 592, 582 (S. Ct. 2012).
- ^ Harvard Law Review 2012, p. 198.
- ^ United States v. Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. 1421, 595 (S. Ct. 2012).
- ^ Harvard Law Review 2012, p. 199.
- ^ Harvard Law Review 2012, p. 200.
- ^ Harvard Law Review 2012, p. 202.
- ^ "Constitutional Law Prof Blog: Supreme Court Finds Stolen Valor Act Unconstitutional". Lawprofessors.typepad.com. Retrieved 2012-10-30.
- ^ Day, Lucky (2009-10-01). "Three Corners Politics: Water board director Xavier Alvarez sentenced to five years' prison". Threecornerspolitics.blogspot.com. Retrieved 2012-10-30.
- ^ Pamer, Melissa (2012-06-28). "High Court Throws Out Conviction for Pomona Man Who Lied About Military Service | NBC Southern California". Nbclosangeles.com. Retrieved 2012-10-30.
References
- "Freedom of Speech – False Statements of Fact: United States v. Alvarez" (PDF). Harvard Law Review. 126 (1): 196–206. 2012.
External links
- ^ Slip opinion from the U.S. Supreme Court (PDF)
- ^ 11-210 Full text of the opinion courtesy of Findlaw.com.