United States v. Perelman, 695 F.3d 866

Perelman fraudulently obtained a Purple Heart and wore it publicly; indictment under 18 U.S.C. §704(a) for unauthorized wearing of medals.
Defendant pleaded guilty to Counts 1 and 2; he reserved appeal on the district court’s denial of his First Amendment facial challenge to §704(a).
District court denied the facial challenge; the case proceeded with de novo review of the statute’s constitutionality under United States v. Vongxay.
§704(a) criminalizes knowingly wearing a military decoration or colorable imitation unless authorized; §704(c),(d) impose enhanced penalties for certain medals like the Purple Heart.
Court adopts a narrow construction: §704(a) requires intent to deceive; not all non‑authorized wearings fall within the statute; §704(b) addressed separately in Alvarez, which is unconstitutional.
Court affirms rejection of the facial First Amendment overbreadth challenge and upholds §704(a) under O’Brien scrutiny.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §704(a) is facially overbroad under the First Amendment.	Perelman argues overbreadth due to broad scope of criminalizing wearing medals.	Overbreadth would sweep harmless conduct into crime.	Not overbroad; narrowing construction applied.
Whether §704(a) requires intent to deceive.	Statute criminalizes wearing a medal regardless of intent to deceive.	Statute could be read to criminalize mere wearing.	§704(a) requires intent to deceive.
Whether §704(a) survives First Amendment scrutiny under O’Brien.	Statute burden on speech and conduct; not narrowly tailored.	Government interest in integrity of medals justifies regulation.	§704(a) satisfies O’Brien factors.
Whether the statute is vague or uncertain about authorization.	Uncertainty in obtaining authorization could render §704(a) vague.	Ambiguity does not render the statute vague for non-authorized wearers.	Not vague; ordinary notice to non-authorized wearers.
Whether §704(b) is unconstitutional, and how it interacts with §704(a).	Alvarez treats §704(b) as unconstitutional content-based speech restriction.	§704(b) targets false statements about receipt of decorations.	§704(a) survives; Alvarez distinguishes §704(b).

United States v. Vongxay, 594 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir. 2010) (facial First Amendment challenge under §704)
United States v. Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. 2537 (Supreme Court 2012) (§704(b) unconstitutional as content-based speech restriction)
Schacht v. United States, 398 U.S. 58 (Supreme Court 1970) (implication of §702 standards and validity of related statutes)
O'Brien v. United States, 391 U.S. 367 (Supreme Court 1968) (test for government regulation of expressive conduct)
United States v. Goeltz, 513 F.2d 193 (10th Cir. 1975) (intent to deceive focused interpretation of similar statute)
United States v. Roe, 575 F. Supp. 2d 690 (D. Md. 2008) (statutory interpretation regarding colorable imitations)