## Facts

- Xavier Alvarez, an elected member of a California municipal water district board, stated at a public meeting that he was a “retired marine” and had received the Congressional Medal of Honor.
- Alvarez’s statements were knowingly false; he had not served in the military and had received no such award.
- The federal government prosecuted Alvarez under the Stolen Valor Act of 2005, 18 U.S.C. § 704(b), which criminalized falsely representing receipt of U.S. military decorations or medals.
- The district court denied Alvarez’s First Amendment motion to dismiss; Alvarez was convicted and sentenced to probation and a fine.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed, concluding the statute violated the First Amendment.
- The Supreme Court granted review to resolve disagreement among federal circuits about the statute’s constitutionality.

## Issues

1. Whether Congress may criminalize knowingly false statements about receiving military decorations or medals consistent with the First Amendment.
2. Whether false statements of fact, without additional elements such as fraud or concrete harm, fall outside First Amendment protection.
3. Whether the Stolen Valor Act is sufficiently tailored to the government’s interest in protecting the integrity of the military honors system.

## Decision

- The Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit and held the Stolen Valor Act unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
- A plurality concluded the Act imposed a content-based restriction on speech and failed the required level of scrutiny because it was not narrowly tailored to a compelling interest.
- A concurrence agreed with invalidation under a more searching intermediate-scrutiny/proportionality approach, emphasizing less speech-restrictive alternatives.
- A dissent would have upheld the statute as a limited prohibition on knowingly false claims that harm the military honors system.

## Legal Principles

- Content-based restrictions on speech are presumptively invalid, and the government bears the burden to justify them under the applicable level of scrutiny.
- There is no general First Amendment exception for false statements of fact; falsehood alone does not remove speech from constitutional protection.
- Regulation of false speech is typically permissible only within established categories tied to concrete harms or legal interests (e.g., fraud, defamation, perjury, speech integral to criminal conduct).
- A broad criminal ban on lies, untethered to proof of material gain, reliance, or specific harm, is overinclusive and risks chilling protected expression.
- When the government can achieve its objective through less speech-restrictive measures (e.g., counterspeech or verification mechanisms), a sweeping content-based criminal prohibition is not narrowly tailored.

## Conclusion

The Court held that the Stolen Valor Act’s criminalization of knowingly false claims about military honors violates the First Amendment because falsity alone is not enough to justify a broad content-based restriction, and the Act was not adequately tailored in light of less restrictive means to protect the integrity of military awards.


United States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. 709 (2012)