United States v. Alvarez
617 F.3d 1198
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Alvarez, seated on a public water district board, publicly claimed to be a Medal of Honor recipient.
- He had not received the Medal of Honor and made a series of false statements at a public meeting.
- An indictment charged two counts under 18 U.S.C. §704(b), with enhanced penalties for certain medals.
- Alvarez pleaded guilty to one count and preserved his First Amendment challenge for appeal.
- The Ninth Circuit majority held the Stolen Valor Act unconstitutional under strict scrutiny; dissents urged a different First Amendment approach and Burden-of-proof issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who bears the First Amendment burden of proof | Government bears burden to prove unprotected speech | Defendant argues the government bears no burden or burden shifts to defendant | Burdens are allocated to government; upheld strict scrutiny foundation? |
| Whether false factual speech is categorically unprotected | Speech is unprotected under Stevens-structured categories | False statements may be protected if speech matters | False statements not categorically protected; depends on context under Stevens framework |
| Whether Stolen Valor Act survives strict scrutiny | Act should be upheld if narrowly tailored to protect military honor | Act invalid as overbroad under First Amendment | Act invalid as applied and facially under First Amendment (majority view) |
| As-applied vs facial challenge distinction | Conviction should be sustained as a valid restriction. | Conviction should be upheld because statute serves compelling interest | Court treated as facial invalidity under First Amendment; discussed as-applied concerns in dissents |
| Impact of Stevens and defamation/fraud categories on analysis | Stevens supports broad unprotected categories including false factual speech | Stevens does not encompass all false statements; context matters | Stevens guides analysis; false statements are not categorically protected; requires contextual balance |
Key Cases Cited
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) (false statements may be protected in limited contexts but not categorically unprotected)
- Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974) (false statements not protected per se; protection depends on 'speech that matters')
- Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988) (false statements are valuable for debate; limits on emotional distress claims for public figures)
- Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64 (1964) (knowingly false statements may lose constitutional protection)
- Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942) (categories of unprotected speech include fighting words; not exhaustive)
- United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460 (2010) (unprotected categories exist; Stevens cautions against ad hoc balancing)
- Becker & K Constr. Co. v. NLRB, 536 U.S. 516 (2002) (speech protection scope in related regulatory contexts)