United States v. Alvarez
567 U.S. ____ (2012) (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A content-based restriction on speech, including a statute criminalizing false statements of fact without requiring proof of additional harm, is presumptively invalid and subject to the most exacting scrutiny under the First Amendment.
Facts:
- In 2007, Xavier Alvarez attended his first public meeting as a newly elected board member of the Three Valley Water District Board in Claremont, California.
- When introducing himself at the meeting, Alvarez stated, "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."
- All of Alvarez's claims about his military service and the medal were false.
- There was no evidence that Alvarez made these false statements to secure employment, financial benefits, or any other tangible material gain.
Procedural Posture:
- Xavier Alvarez was indicted in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California for violating the Stolen Valor Act.
- Alvarez moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the Act violated his First Amendment rights, but the trial court denied his motion.
- Alvarez pleaded guilty to one count, reserving his right to appeal the constitutionality of the Act.
- Alvarez, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- A divided panel of the Ninth Circuit, with the United States as appellee, held the Act was unconstitutional and reversed Alvarez's conviction.
- The United States' petition for a writ of certiorari was granted by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Stolen Valor Act, 18 U.S.C. § 704(b), which criminalizes falsely representing oneself as having received any U.S. military decoration or medal, violate the First Amendment's protection of free speech?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Kennedy
Yes, the Stolen Valor Act violates the First Amendment. Content-based restrictions on speech are presumptively invalid, and there is no general exception to the First Amendment for false statements. While certain categories of false speech, such as defamation or fraud, may be regulated, it is because they are associated with a legally cognizable harm, not merely their falsity. The Act impermissibly targets falsity itself, without any limiting principle or requirement of additional harm, giving the government a broad censorial power. Although the government's interest in protecting the integrity of military honors is compelling, the Act fails exacting scrutiny because the government did not demonstrate a direct causal link between the restriction and the purported harm, nor did it show that less restrictive alternatives like counterspeech or a government-created database would be insufficient.
Concurring - Justice Breyer
Yes, the Stolen Valor Act violates the First Amendment. Applying a proportionality or 'intermediate scrutiny' analysis, the statute works a significant First Amendment harm that is out of proportion to its justification. While the government's objective is substantial, the Act's broad scope—covering lies in private and social contexts where little harm occurs—creates a significant risk of chilling protected speech and allows for selective prosecution. The government can achieve its objectives in less burdensome ways, such as by enacting a more narrowly tailored statute that requires proof of specific harm, is limited to certain high-value medals, or focuses on contexts where harm is most likely to occur.
Dissenting - Justice Alito
No, the Stolen Valor Act does not violate the First Amendment. False statements of fact have long been recognized as possessing no intrinsic First Amendment value, especially when they inflict real harm. The Act is a narrow statute targeting only knowingly false statements about objective, verifiable facts that undermine the nation's system of military honors and cause tangible and intangible harm to actual recipients. The Act does not chill any valuable speech. Counterspeech is an inadequate remedy because a comprehensive database of recipients is impracticable, and constant media stories about fakes would only increase public cynicism. The lies proscribed by the Act serve no legitimate interest and are not protected by the right to free speech.
Analysis:
This decision significantly reinforces the high bar for content-based speech restrictions, establishing that falsity alone is not a constitutionally sufficient reason to criminalize speech. By rejecting the creation of a new category of unprotected speech for false statements, the Court affirmed that such laws must be narrowly tailored and typically linked to a specific, tangible harm like fraud or defamation. This precedent makes it substantially more difficult for the government to regulate lies that do not cause direct material or reputational injury, solidifying the 'marketplace of ideas' theory where the remedy for false speech is counterspeech, not censorship.
