United States v. Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. 2537

Xavier Alvarez, a public official, falsely claimed at a public meeting that he held the Congressional Medal of Honor, triggering §704(b) and an enhanced penalty under §704(c).
Alvarez was indicted under the Stolen Valor Act for false claims about a Congressional Medal of Honor; district court denied First Amendment challenge and Alvarez pleaded guilty, reserving appeal on the First Amendment issue.
The Ninth Circuit held the Stolen Valor Act unconstitutional as applied to Alvarez, creating a circuit split with the Tenth Circuit’s Strandlof decision upholding the Act.
The Court granted certiorari to resolve the circuit conflict on the Act’s validity as a restriction on speech.
The majority concludes the Act targets false statements broadly, and applies in many settings beyond material gain, raising substantial First Amendment concerns.
The Court affirms that the Government may not suppress false speech through broad content-based criminal penalties without meeting exacting scrutiny.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is §704(b)-(c) a permissible content-based restriction?	Alvarez argues the statute suppresses false speech without narrow tailoring.	United States contends the statute serves an important national interest in protecting military honors and is narrowly tailored via mens rea elements.	Unconstitutional; violates First Amendment
Does the Act satisfy exacting scrutiny or require narrowing?	Statutory scope is too broad and lacks direct, necessary link to preventing harm.	Statute protects integrity of honors and reduces fraud and dilution of the Medal of Honor.	Fails exacting scrutiny
Are there less restrictive means to achieve the Government’s objectives?	The Government could rely on counterspeech, records databases, or targeted prohibitions.	A comprehensive database is impracticable; broader tools are necessary to deter false claims.	Yes, but not with the current breadth; authorities should tailor.

Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 535 U.S. 564 (U.S. 2002) (content-based restrictions presumed invalid; government bears burden)
Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 542 U.S. 656 (U.S. 2004) (reiteration of strict stance against free-floating tests)
United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460 (U.S. 2010) (rejects ad hoc balancing for broad speech restrictions)
Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of N. Y. State Crime Victims Bd., 502 U.S. 105 (U.S. 1991) (historical categories of unprotected speech; limits to regulation)
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (U.S. 1969) (limits on incitement as a category of unprotected speech)
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (U.S. 1964) (actual malice standard; protections for truthful discourse)
Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748 (U.S. 1976) (untruthful speech not protected when it causes harm)
Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (U.S. 1974) (false statements about public figures; protection varies by context)
Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1990) (true/false statements; infers the role of falsity in protecting speech)
United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87 (U.S. 1993) (perjury statutes are constitutional; context matters)
Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (U.S. 1988) (false statements about public figures; limited protections)