Source: https://www.pulj.org/the-roundtable/march-30th-2015
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 18:37:34+00:00

Document:
In 2007, a grand jury indicted Swisher for (among other violations) wearing unauthorized military medals in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 704(a) of the Stolen Valor Act of 2005. § 704(a) criminalized unauthorized wearing of military medals with intention to deceive. In the trial, the government showed a photograph in which Swisher wore several military medals, despite no evidence in the Marine Corps files to confirm that Swisher had prior authorization to wear those medals. In the end, the jury found Swisher guilty on all counts.
In 2011, Swisher challenged his conviction, in light of United States v. Alvarez, decided by the United States Supreme Court. In Alvarez, the court struck down 18 U.S.C. § 704(b), which criminalized making false claims regarding military medals, as unconstitutional. In particular, the plurality held that § 704(b) did not pass strict scrutiny because the government had failed to show “a close fit between the restriction imposed and the injury prevented or that that the government had chosen the least restrictive meant to achieve its ends.”  Swisher argued that the Alvarez reasoning regarding § 704(b) in Alvarez ought to be applied to § 704(a), under which Swisher was convicted.
As a result, the court applied reasoning from Perelman and upheld Swisher’s conviction. In particular, Swisher argued that § 704(a), in restricting his “expressive conduct” was in violation of the First Amendment. However, citing Perelman, the court found that § 704(a) could lawfully regulate conduct, and therefore, rejected Swisher’s argument. Furthermore, without an intervening higher authority (that is, a contrary ruling by a higher court), the court could not consider overruling Perelman. Therefore, the court concluded that § 704(a) could be lawfully applied to Swisher’s conduct, and upheld his conviction.
However, there are valid arguments against the Swisher ruling. Circuit Judge A. Wallace Tashima addressed some of these arguments in a concurring opinion, in which he expressed disagreement with the court’s rationale but nonetheless acknowledged that court was not able to depart from Perelman. In particular, Tashima challenged Perelman’s conclusion that speech and conduct can be decoupled. Indeed, symbolic speech seems to be both speech and conduct, in that an action is taken in order to convey a particular message. Moreover, the Supreme Court has previously ruled that certain instances of symbolic speech are indeed protected by the First Amendment, such as in Texas v. Johnson (1989) (regarding flag burning)  and Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist. (1969) (regarding wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War) . Thus, if Perelman involved symbolic speech, then § 704(a) may indeed by unconstitutional.
Moving forward, it is clear that the scope of First Amendment protection is a recurring problem in constitutional law. On the one hand, cases like Perelman and Swisher demonstrate a narrowing of the scope of these rights. On the other hand, cases such as Alvarez, and indeed, the more controversial campaign finance case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010),  demonstrate a broadening of the scope of First Amendment rights. Nonetheless, Swisher represents an important development in First Amendment jurisprudence, and it will be informative to see if and how future rulings cite Swisher.
 United States v. Swisher, No. 11-35796, D.C. Nos. 1:09-cv-00055-BLW, 1:07-cr-00182-BLW-1, http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/10/29/11-35796.pdf.
 Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/491/397.
 Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969), http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/393/503.
 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. ___ (2010), http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZX.html.

References: § 704
 § 704
 v. 
 § 704
 § 704
 § 704
 § 704
 § 704
 § 704
 § 704
 v. 
 v. 
 § 704
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.