A divided panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has found the Stolen Valor Act unconstitutional. The decision in the case of United States v. Alvarez can be downloaded here (76 pages so don't just print!)
The Stolen Valor Act, 18 U.S.C. 704(b), provides:
Whoever falsely represents himself or herself, verbally or in writing, to have been awarded any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the Armed Forces of the United States, any of the service medals or badges awarded to the members of such forces, the ribbon, button, or rosette of any such badge, decoration, or medal, or any colorable imitation of such item shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
The defendant publicly stated that he was awarded the Medal of Honor in 1987. The court further recounted his statements:
Apparently, Alvarez makes a hobby of lying about himself to make people think he is “a psycho from the mental ward with Rambo stories.” The summer before his election to the water district board, a woman informed the FBI about Alvarez’s propensity for making false claims about his military past. Alvarez told her that he won the Medal of Honor for rescuing the American Ambassador during the Iranian hostage crisis, and that he had been shot in the back as he returned to the embassy to save the American flag. Alvarez reportedly told another woman that he was a Vietnam veteran helicopter pilot who had been shot down but then, with the help of his buddies, was able to get the chopper back into the sky.
Alvarez was convicted of making these statements and challenged the constitutionality of the statute on First Amendment grounds.
Beginning with a commentary on modern life, the majority stated:
"The sad fact is, most people lie about some aspects of their lives from time to time."
Sure - but should the Constitution protect such statements?
The majority decision reviewed the false statements made and found that they were not part of the narrow exception of unprotected speech (i.e. defamation, libel), applied strict scrutiny and struck down the statute facially and as applied to Mr. Alvarez.
Judge Bybee wrote a lengthy dissent.
One to watch for sure. En banc review is likely in an election year and the Supreme Court loves a good First Amendment case.
Comments