Supreme Court to hear dispute over Stolen Valor Act

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court said Monday that it will hear an emotionally charged dispute over a federal law that makes it a crime to lie about being a war hero and earning military medals.

The case, involving the Stolen Valor Act passed in 2006, tests the reach of First Amendment free-speech protection for false statements, including those about personal military feats.

Government lawyers who have appealed a decision invalidating the law, emphasize that medals "express the nation's gratitude for the patriotism and courage," and they contend that false claims of having received military awards dilute their meaning. Lower court judges who found the law a breach of the First Amendment expressed concerns the government was targeting speech "solely because it is a lie."

The dispute began when Xavier Alvarez, a member of a municipal water board in Southern California, said in 2007 that he had been wounded as a Marine and had received in 1987 the Medal of Honor, the highest military award.

The government prosecuted Alvarez, who had never served in the military, under the new law prohibiting anyone from falsely representing himself or herself "to have been awarded any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the Armed Forces of the United States."

A trial judge sentenced Alvarez to three years' probation and a $5,000 fine. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit reversed the trial judge's ruling. It said the law — aimed at speech and imposing a criminal penalty — must be subject to the strictest constitutional scrutiny. The appeals panel concluded Congress could have more narrowly tailored the reach of the law, for example, by banning actual impersonations of war heroes.

The 9th Circuit denied the Justice Department's request for a hearing. In an opinion concurring in that denial, Chief Judge Alex Kozinski wrote that without strong First Amendment protection, "the government can prosecute not only the man who tells tall tales of winning the Congressional Medal of Honor, but also the JDater who falsely claims he's Jewish or the dentist who assures you it won't hurt a bit. … Without the robust protections of the First Amendment, the white lies, exaggerations and deceptions that are an integral part of human intercourse would become targets of censorship."

In government's appeal, U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli said the problem of people falsely claiming war valor continues and that several lower courts are hearing challenges to the constitutionality of the law.

Verrilli contends false statements about military decorations do not merit the highest First Amendment protection, yet he adds that even if such statements did, the law serves a compelling government interest and would meet the highest test. "False representations have the tendency to dilute the value and meaning of military awards," he told the high court.

Alvarez's lawyers say his statement "harmed no one" and that he was in fact "pilloried in the community" for his false boasts. The case, United States v. Alvarez, will be heard in 2012.

The justices also agreed to take up two disputes over when people can sue for alleged human-rights abuses overseas.