Military medals lies spur high court debate | Vote

U.S. Supreme Court justices grappled with whether Congress can make it a crime to falsely claim to have been awarded a military medal, in a case testing the reach of the Constitution’s free-speech protection.

The justices Wednesday heard arguments on the 2005 Stolen Valor Act, which punishes people with as much as a year in prison for lying about receiving a medal. A federal appeals court declared that the law violated the Constitution, and President Barack Obama’s administration is appealing.

A false claim of being awarded a military medal “does diminish the medal in many respects,” Justice Anthony Kennedy said during the hour-long argument in Washington.

Still, he and other members of the court questioned whether upholding the law would mean the government could sanction similar kinds of false statements without violating free-speech rights.

“Where do you stop?” asked Chief Justice John Roberts, who compared the case to someone claiming falsely to have earned a high school diploma.

The case before the justices involves Xavier Alvarez, one of the first people charged under the law. In 2005, Alvarez was serving as an elected member of the local water board in Pomona, Calif., when he said at a board meeting that he had served 25 years in the Marines and had been awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. In truth, he had never served in the military.

Three years of probation

He was indicted for violating the Stolen Valor Act and pleaded guilty, while reserving his right to appeal on First Amendment grounds. Alvarez was sentenced to three years of probation, a $5,000 fine and 416 hours of community service. A divided federal appeals court in San Francisco threw out the guilty plea.

Prosecutors have filed charges under the Stolen Valor act in 45 cases since the law was enacted, Alvarez said in court papers.

The Obama administration says previous Supreme Court cases establish that false statements are entitled to only limited First Amendment protection. Alvarez says that’s not the case, contending that the court has never carved out a First Amendment exception for lies.

The case is United States v. Alvarez, 11-210.