United States v . Alvarez United States v . Alvarez , , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court struck down the Stolen Valor Act , a federal law that criminalized false statements about having a military medal . The law had been passed as an effort to stem instances where people falsely claimed to have won the medal in an attempt to protect the " valor " of those who really had . While a 6 - 3 majority of the Supreme Court agreed that the law was unconstitutional under the First Amendment ' s free speech protections , 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 was invalid because it could have achieved its objectives in less restrictive ways . Reaction from the political community and from veteran organizations were negative . Several months after the decision , both chambers of Congress passed new versions of the Stolen Valor Act 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 . Background . Stolen Valor Act . President George W . Bush signed the Stolen Valor Act of 2005 , ( 18 U . S . C . § 704 ) , into law on December 20 , 2006 . The Act broadens previous provisions addressing the unauthorized wear , manufacture , or sale of any military decorations and medals by making it a misdemeanor to falsely represent oneself as having received any U . S . military decoration or medal . If convicted , defendants may be imprisoned for up to six months , unless the decoration lied about is the Medal of Honor , in which case imprisonment could be up to one year . Proponents in Congress argued that the law was passed to prevent impostors from " stealing the valor " of soldiers returning from engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan . Alvarez ' s statements . In 2007 at a Three Valley Water District Board meeting in Claremont , California , new member Xavier Alvarez introduced himself by saying " I ' m a retired marine of 25 years . I retired in the year 2001 . Back in 1987 , I was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor . I got wounded many times by the same guy . " As this statement was not true , Alvarez was indicted for violating the Stolen Valor Act . The United States District Court for the Central District of California , the place where the trial was to occur , rejected Alvarez ' s claim that the Act was unconstitutional . This decision was reversed by a three - judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit which held the law invalid . Rehearing by the entire panel of the Ninth Circuit ( instead of just the three judges ) was denied over the dissent of seven judges . Judge Smith , one of the dissenters , argued that the panel " incorrectly rested its laurels on Supreme Court rulings in defamation cases that false facts did not receive First Amendment protections . " Smith argued that this was not a defamation case , because even if the act was intended to prevent injury to military personnel , " [ t ] he right against defamation belongs to natural persons , not to governmental institutions or symbols . " The government appealed the Ninth Circuit ' s decision , which was subsequently granted by the Supreme Court in 2011 . Supreme Court oral arguments . The Supreme Court heard oral argument on February 22 , 2012 . Donald Verrilli , Jr . , Solicitor General of the United States , appeared on behalf of the United States . Jonathan D . Libby , Deputy Federal Public Defender , appeared on behalf of Alvarez . Verrilli spoke first ; he began by explaining that military honors touch on the core values of the armed forces , and the Stolen Valor Act simply aims to protect those core values . Almost immediately Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked Verrilli a hypothetical : The questions during Verrilli ' s argument focused on the lack of injury caused by false claims of military honors . In nearly all the cases that the United States cited to support the proposition that there is no First Amendment value in falsity , the Court had addressed a false statement that harmed another , such as a defamatory statement . Relying on these cases , Verrilli stated , " [ T ] his Court has said in numerous contexts , numerous contexts , that the calculated factual falsehood has no First Amendment value for its own sake . " Justice Anthony Kennedy immediately retorted : Libby opened the defense argument by emphasizing that the First Amendment is intended to protect personal autonomy . In response to several questions , Libby played on the Court ' s discontent with the apparent lack of harm by stating that there is value in falsity " so long as it doesn ' t cause imminent harm to another person or imminent harm to a government function . " Libby took a misstep in the Court ' s estimation , however , when he conceded that the Act did not chill any truthful speech . In response , Justice Kagan stated , " So , boy , I mean , that ' s a big concession , Mr . Libby . Then you ' re saying , you can only win this case if this Court decides that the " Gertz " statement was a kind of overstatement , an exaggeration , puffery . " Supreme Court ' s decision . On June 28 , 2012 , a divided Supreme Court held that the Stolen Valor Act ' s prohibition against making false statements of having been awarded a military medal violated the First Amendment . However , the six justices in the majority could not agree on a single rationale for the decision . Kennedy ' s plurality opinion . Justice Anthony Kennedy , writing for a plurality consisting of himself , Chief Justice John Roberts , Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg , and Justice Sonia Sotomayor , wrote that false statements are not , by the sole reason of their falsity , excluded from First Amendment protection . " The Court has never endorsed the categorical rule the Government advances , " Kennedy wrote . " Our prior decisions have not confronted a measure , like the Stolen Valor Act , that targets falsity and nothing more . " Even though there are several examples of the use of penalizing false speech ( like perjury ) , Kennedy argued that " [ t ] he Government has not demonstrated that false statements generally should constitute a new category of unprotected speech . . . " The plurality opinion also expressed the wide applicability of the Stolen Valor Act . " The Act by its plain terms , " Kennedy wrote , " applies to a false statement made at any time , in any place , to any person " . Such breadth means that the law is " sweeping . . . [ the ] reach of the statute puts it in conflict with the First Amendment . . . the statute would apply with equal force to personal , whispered conversations within a home . " When balanced against the Government ' s need to protect the value of the Medal , the plurality said that " the link between the Government ' s interest in protecting the integrity of the military honors system and the Act ' s restriction on the false claims of liars like respondent has not been shown . " Additionally , Kennedy wrote that ' counter - speech ' was a sufficient solution to the problem : " It is a fair assumption that any true holders of the Medal who had heard of Alvarez ' s false claims would have been fully vindicated by the community ' s expression of outrage . . . Truth needs neither handcuffs nor a badge for its vindication . " Breyer ' s concurrence . Justice Stephen Breyer , joined by Justice Elena Kagan , agreed that the Stolen Valor Act was unconstitutional , but on entirely different grounds . Breyer based his finding not on a strict scrutiny test that the plurality had used , but on a " proportionality " or " intermediate scrutiny test " . This test examines " whether the statute works speech - related harm that is out of proportion to its justifications . " After holding that Congress could create a database of those who had won the Medal , among other alternatives to the existing law , Breyer said that there " were " lesser restrictive means to achieve the government ' s interest . Alito ' s dissent . Justice Samuel Alito , joined by Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas , dissented from the Court ' s decision striking down the Act . For Alito , the ruling had " [ broken ] sharply from a long line of cases recognizing that the right to free speech does not protect false factual statements that inflict real harm and serve no legitimate interest . " " The Stolen Valor Act , " Alito wrote , " represents the judgment of the people ' s elected representatives that false statements about military awards are very different from false statements about civilian awards . . . [ the Act ] is a narrow law enacted to address an important problem , and it presents no threat to freedom of expression . " Subsequent developments . Reaction . The leadership of several veteran ' s organizations were dismayed by the decision . A spokesperson for the Veterans of Foreign Wars said " Despite the ruling , the VFW will continue to challenge far - fetched stories , and to publicize these false heroes to the broadest extent possible as a deterrent to others . ” Harold A . Fritz , a recipient of the medal from the Vietnam War agreed with the VFW that " It ’ s more than just a piece of metal suspended on a piece of cloth on a pin . . . . And people who abuse that . . . need to be penalized . " Proponents of the Stolen Valor Act promised to bring forward more limited legislation in the future . Alvarez ' s attorney praised the decision , saying " The First Amendment protects a lot of what we as Americans get to say . . . The government doesn ' t get to decide what we can and cannot say . ” Alvarez ' s prison sentence . Despite the ruling on the Stolen Valor Act , Alvarez remained in legal trouble due to allegations that he defrauded the government by falsely receiving health insurance benefits . He was convicted of misappropriation of public funds , grand theft , and insurance fraud in 2009 and sentenced to five years in state prison , and was discharged in March 2012 from Calipatria State Prison . Revised Stolen Valor Act proposals . In 2012 , attempts to revive the Stolen Valor Act in a more limited form ( requiring a monetary gain from the false statement ) were introduced and passed in the House . A similar version also passed the Senate . However , these revisions did not make it into the final versions of the bill that came out of conference .