EPIC - US v. Alvarez

US v. Alvarez

Concerning the Constitutionality of the Stolen Valor Act

Latest News |
Questions Presented |
Background |
EPIC's Interest in Alvarez |
Legal Documents |
Resources |
News Reports

Question Presented

Whether the Stolen Valor Act, 18 U.S.C. § 704(b), which makes it a crime to falsely represent that you have been awarded any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the Armed Forces of the United States, is facially invalid under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

Background

The Stolen Valor Act ("the Act"), 18 U.S.C. §704(b), imposes a criminal penalty of up to one year of imprisonment, plus a fine, for the "mere utterance or writing" of a false statement of fact. Specifically, the Act prohibits "false verbal or written representations about one’s being awarded Congressionally authorized military honors and decorations." US v. Alvarez, 617 F.3d 1198, 1200, 1202 (9th Cir. 2011). Both sides agree that the Act regulates "only ... words." Id. at 1202. (citing Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 612 (1973)). The Act is a content-based restriction on speech and, as a result, it must satisfy strict scrutiny or otherwise fit into an exception in order to survive review under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. Respondent Alvarez argued successfully before the lower court that his false speech was protected and that the Stolen Valor Act did not satisfy strict scrutiny; the court ruled the Act unconstitutional. The Government argued that most knowingly false factual speech is unworthy of constitutional protection.

EPIC's Interest in the Stolen Valor Act

EPIC has an interest in the continued viability and effectiveness of strong privacy laws. In the past the Court has struggled with the balance between the First Amendment's free speech protections and the strong privacy protections created by federal law. In IMS Health v. Sorrell, the Court struck down a Vermont privacy law because it prohibited a narrow category of disclosures of personal medical information, disclosures by pharmacies for marketing purposes, which the Court held constituted a content-based restriction on speech. The Court has also addressed this Free Speech-Privacy balance with common law privacy torts, such as defamation, which regulate false speech. EPIC has an interest in limiting the impact of the Court's decision in this case on Privacy laws that regulate disclosures and false database entries of personal information.

Legal Documents

Supreme Court Documents

Petition for Certiorari (PDF)
"Friend of the Court" Briefs in Support of United States

"Friend of the Court" Briefs in Support of Respondent Xavier Alvarez

Ninth Circuit Circuit Court of Appeals

Resources

Supreme Court Opinions

Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974).
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).

Circuit Court Opinions

Clipper Exxpress v. Rocky Mountain Motor Tariff Bureau, Inc., 690 F.2d 1240, 1262 (9th Cir. 1982)

Law Review Articles and Books

Steven G. Gey, The First Amendment and the Dissemination of Socially Worthless Untruths, 36 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 1, 20 (2008)
Jonathan D. Varat, Deception and the First Amendment: A Central, Complex, and Somewhat Curious Relationship, 53 UCLA L. Rev. 1107, 1109 (2006)