WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed Monday to hear a First Amendment case to decide whether freedom of speech includes a right to lie about military honors.
The justices voted to hear the government’s defense of the Stolen Valor Act, a 5-year-old law that makes it a crime to falsely claim to have earned medals for service in the U.S. armed forces.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year struck down the law on free-speech grounds and said the government cannot act as “truth police” to punish lies that cause no direct harm.
But U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr., in his appeal, said that “knowingly false” statements deserve little protection under the First Amendment. He pointed to laws against fraud that punish those who make false promises to obtain money and to laws against defamation.
The court said it will hear the case of United States vs. Alvarez early next year and rule by summer.
The case began in 2007 when a newly elected board member to the Three Valleys Municipal Water District, based in Claremont, Calif., introduced himself as a military veteran.
“I’m a retired Marine of 25 years,” said Xavier Alvarez. “Back in 1987, I was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor.”
None of those claims was true.
Acting on a citizen’s complaint, the FBI obtained a recording of the meeting. He was said to be the first person indicted for violating the Stolen Valor Act, which forbids “falsely” representing yourself “verbally or in writing” as having been awarded a military medal or decoration that was authorized by Congress.
Alvarez contended the law was unconstitutional but pleaded guilty when his motion was denied. He was given a fine and three years of probation. He then appealed to the 9th Circuit.
The decision to take up the California case puts a hold on a Colorado case that is under review by the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. A District Court judge had tossed out charges that Rick Strandlof lied about his military record, but the government appealed the decision. On Monday, U.S. Attorney John Walsh asked the court to halt its review until the Supreme Court rules.
Human-rights cases to go before court
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed to resolve an international human-rights dispute over whether corporations and political groups can be held liable in American courts for their role in the torture, murder and enslavement of victims abroad.
The justices will hear the case of a dozen Nigerians who sued the Royal Dutch Shell oil company for the torture and execution of dissidents in Nigeria in the 1990s.
Another case involves a lawsuit against the Palestinian Authority and the Palestine Liberation Organization by the sons and widow of Azzam Rahim, a Palestinian-American. Rahim was allegedly tortured and murdered by Palestinian intelligence officials in the 1990s. The Associated Press
