Summary of United States v. Alvarez (2012), p. 31-32.

L3 First Amendment

United States v. Alvarez (2012)

In United States v. Alvarez (2012), the question to the court is whether the U.S. Government’s Stolen valor Act, which makes it a crime to falsely claim receipt of military decorations, contravenes the First amendment by representing a restriction on the Freedom of speech.

As the Stolen valor Act represents a content-based restriction on speech, the onus is on the government to prove the constitutionality of the act, and the Supreme Court applies the “most exacting” level of scrutiny to determine whether the act is constitutional or not.

The Government argued that false statements have no value and therefore have no First Amendment Protection, and that the Stolen valor Act is therefore constitutional.

However, the U.S. Government’s argument did not prevail / the court rejected the U.S. Government’s argument:

The Court considered that “false statement” is not part of the few categories of speech which are unprotected by the First amendment (such as obscenity, fraud, true threats, and speech presenting some grave and imminent threat to the government) and which the government has the power to prevent.

To justify its restriction on false statements, the government should be able to demonstrate that there is direct link between a false statement and an injury.

Besides, the U.S. government could not refer to a previous ruling where the Supreme Court had to determine the constitutionality of an act which exclusively targeted falsity.

In the earlier cases, the false statements had been refused protection not simply because they were false, but because they were part of another criminal offense or civil wrong (fraud, libel). In all the previous cases, there was a clear connection between a false statement and a legally recognizable harm, the Supreme Court argued. (“The question of false statement was not irrelevant but not determinative.”)

In contrast, the Stolen Valor Act makes certain speech illegal, no matter what the circumstances or the motivations of the speaker. Declaring the Stolen Value Act constitutional, would thus give the government the power to establish a list of subjects about which false statements are punishable. (The ‘Slippery Slope’ argument)

Finally, whenever the Government seeks to regulate protected speech, the restriction must be the “least restrictive means among available, effective alternatives”. This does not prove to be the case either in this situation.