| United States v. Alvarez | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued February 22, 2012 Decided June 28, 2012 | |
| Full case name | United States, Petitioner v. Xavier Alvarez |
| Docket no. | 11-210 |
| Citations | 567 U.S. 709 (more) 132 S. Ct. 2537; 183 L. Ed. 2d 574; 2012 U.S. LEXIS 4879 |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Defendant's motion for dismissal rejected, unreported, n° CR-07-1035-RGK (C.D. Cal. 2008); reversed and remanded, 617 F.3d 1198 (9th Cir., 2009); rehearing en banc denied, 638 F.3d 666 (9th Cir., 2011); certiorari granted 565 U.S. ___ |
| Questions presented | |
| Is the Stolen Valor Act of 2005 constitutional? | |
| Holding | |
| The Stolen Valor Act of 2005 (18 U.S.C. 704) is unconstitutional because it violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Plurality | Kennedy, joined by Roberts, Ginsburg, Sotomayor |
| Concurrence | Breyer (in judgment), joined by Kagan |
| Dissent | Alito, joined by Scalia, Thomas |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. I; Stolen Valor Act of 2005 | |
United States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. 709 (2012), is a landmark decision in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Stolen Valor Act of 2005 was unconstitutional. The Stolen Valor Act of 2005 was a federal law that criminalized false statements about having a military medal. It had been passed by Congress as an effort to stem instances where people falsely claimed to have earned the medal in an attempt to protect the valor of legitimate recipients. A 6–3 majority of the Supreme Court agreed that the law was unconstitutional and violated the free speech protections under the First Amendment. Despite reaffirming the opinion that was previously issued by the Ninth Circuit, it could not agree on a single rationale. Four justices concluded that a statement's falsity is not enough, by itself, to exclude speech from First Amendment protection. Another two justices concluded that while false statements were entitled to some protection, the Stolen Valor Act of 2005 was invalid because it could have achieved its objectives in less restrictive ways.
Veterans organizations and politicians reacted negatively. Several months after the decision, both chambers of Congress passed new versions of the Stolen Valor Act of 2005 based on the suggestions in the Court's opinion. Despite the Supreme Court having struck down the conviction under the Act, Alvarez remained in prison for fraud on other matters.