| Property | Value |
|---|
| rdf:type | |
| rdfs:label | |
| rdfs:comment | - United States v. Alvarez, , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court struck down the Stolen Valor Act, a federal law that criminalized false statements about having a military medal. The law had been passed as an effort to stem instances where people falsely claimed to have won the medal in an attempt to protect the "valor" of those who really had. While a 6-3 majority of the Supreme Court agreed that the law was unconstitutional under the First Amendment's free speech protections, it could not agree on a single rationale. Four justices concluded that a statement's falsity is not enough, by itself, to exclude speech from First Amendment protection. Another two justices concluded that while false statements were entitled to some protection, the Stolen Valor Act was invalid
|
| owl:sameAs | |
| dcterms:subject | |
| dbkwik:military/property/wikiPageUsesTemplate | |
| USVol | |
| Concurrence | |
| Dissent | |
| LawsApplied | |
| Plurality | |
| DecideYear | |
| ParallelCitations | |
| ArgueDate | |
| Litigants | |
| Prior | |
| JoinConcurrence | |
| ArgueYear | |
| JoinPlurality | - Roberts, Ginsburg, Sotomayor
|
| SCOTUS | |
| Holding | - The Stolen Valor Act is unconstitutional and Alvarez's conviction under that Act is reversed.
|
| JoinDissent | |
| Fullname | - United States, Petitioner v. Xavier Alvarez
|
| OralArgument | |
| DecideDate | |
| USPage | |
| Docket | |
| abstract | - United States v. Alvarez, , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court struck down the Stolen Valor Act, a federal law that criminalized false statements about having a military medal. The law had been passed as an effort to stem instances where people falsely claimed to have won the medal in an attempt to protect the "valor" of those who really had. While a 6-3 majority of the Supreme Court agreed that the law was unconstitutional under the First Amendment's free speech protections, it could not agree on a single rationale. Four justices concluded that a statement's falsity is not enough, by itself, to exclude speech from First Amendment protection. Another two justices concluded that while false statements were entitled to some protection, the Stolen Valor Act was invalid because it could have achieved its objectives in less restrictive ways. Reaction from the political community and from veteran organizations were negative. Several months after the decision, both chambers of Congress passed new versions of the Stolen Valor Act based on the suggestions in the Court's opinion. Despite the Supreme Court having struck down the conviction under the Act, Alvarez remained in prison for fraud on other matters.
|
