Supreme Court takes dispute over lying about war heroism

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court said Monday that it will step into an emotionally charged dispute over a federal law that makes it a crime to lie about being a war hero.

The case revolves around the federal Stolen Valor Act, passed by Congress in 2006, which tests the reach of First Amendment free speech protection even for lies about personal military feats.

The dispute the justices agreed to hear, probably in early 2012, began when Xavier Alvarez, a member of a municipal water board in Southern California, declared that he had been wounded many times as a Marine and earned the Medal of Honor, the highest military award.

The government prosecuted him under the law declaring it a crime when anyone "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."

Justice Department lawyers say the law responded to concerns that a prohibition on the unauthorized wearing of medals was not sufficiently deterring false claims about personal war records.

A trial judge sentenced Alvarez, who never served in the military, to three years probation and imposed a $5,000 fine. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit reversed, based on free speech grounds.

The appeals court said the law — targeting speech and imposing a criminal penalty — was subject to the strictest constitutional scrutiny. It concluded the government should have more narrowly tailored the reach of the law by targeting "actual impersonation or fraud."

When the Justice Department asked for a rehearing, the 9th Circuit denied it. In an opinion concurring in that denial, Chief Judge Alex Kozinski wrote that "white lies, exaggerations and deceptions … are an integral part" of life and human interaction.

In their appeal to the high court, government lawyers stressed that the problem of people falsely claiming war valor is recurring and that several lower courts are hearing challenges to the constitutionality of the law.

The Justice Department's petition, signed by U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, contends false statements about military valor do not merit the highest First Amendment protection. Even if such statements did, the department says, the law was tailored to serve a compelling government interest.

"False claims to have won a medal dilute the meaning of military awards," the government says, and the lower court decision "invalidates an important act of Congress designed to protect the integrity of the nation's military honors system."