Stolen Valor Act Case Study
Despite its name, the Stolen Valor Act does not violate the First Amendment. Instead, it imposes stricter penalties for false claims of military honors than are currently permitted. It was enacted in 2005 to prevent a rash of false claims about military decorations.
The Stolen Valor Act was drafted too broadly to meet exact scrutiny. The Act prohibits false statements regarding military awards only in those situations where there is a good chance that the speech will not be harmful. It also adds a requirement that the speaker intends to benefit from the statement.
The Supreme Court characterized the Stolen Valor Act as a content-based speech restriction. Content-based speech restrictions are almost always invalid. They can be justified only in extremely rare and extreme situations.
Congress did not draft the Stolen Valor Act to restrict speech beyond the First Amendment's boundaries. In other words, the Act prohibits false claims to secure employment or money.
Government argued that lies do not contribute to self-government and do not contribute to the search for truth. The government also argued that the Act is necessary to preserve the integrity of the Medal.
The plurality of the Court disagreed with the government. They suggested that the statute should be more narrowly tailored. Instead of covering lies with no intrinsic value, the statute should be tailored to cover lies with valuable considerations.
Xavier Alvarez pleaded guilty to lying about his claim to receive the Congressional Medal of Honor. He claimed to have been awarded the medal in 1987 during a hostage crisis in Iran.
