United States v. Alvarez (11-210)

argument 11-210

United States v. Alvarez

Supreme Court of the United States 58 min 5 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 5 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the Stolen Valor Act and why is it being debated?

John G. Roberts 0:01

We'll hear argument first this morning in Case 11-210, United

Donald B. Verrilli Jr. 0:05

States v. Alvarez. General Verrilli. GENERAL VERRILLI. Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, military honors play a vital role in inculcating and sustaining the core values of our nation's armed forces. The military applies exacting criteria in awarding honors, and Congress has a long tradition of legislating to protect the integrity of the honors system. The Stolen Valor Act continues that tradition. by prohibiting knowingly false statements that one has been awarded a military honor. It regulates a carefully limited and narrowly drawn category of calculated factual falsehoods. It advances a legitimate, substantial, indeed compelling governmental interest, and it shows no protected speech.

Donald B. Verrilli Jr. 0:54

This Court has recognized —

Elena Kagan 0:55

JUSTICE GINSBERG. General, may I pose a hypothetical during the Vietnam War? A protester holds up a sign that says, I won a Purple Heart, dash, dash, for killing babies. Knowing statement, he didn't win the Purple Heart. As a reader, I can't be sure whether he did and is a combat veteran who opposes the war or whether he's a citizen protesting the war. Is that person, if he's not a veteran, having received the medal, is he liable under this

Donald B. Verrilli Jr. 1:33

Act? I think, Your Honor, it would depend on whether that expression was reasonably understood by the audience as a statement of fact or as an exercise in political theater. If it's the latter, it's not within the scope of the statute, and it would

Elena Kagan 1:50

be subject to liability. Isn't it to subject speech to the absolute rule of no protection, which is what you're advocating, I understand. But there are no circumstances in which this speech has value. I believe that's your bottom line.

Donald B. Verrilli Jr. 2:07

Well, what I would say with respect to that, Your Honor, is that this Court has said in numerous contexts, numerous contexts, that the calculated factual falsehood has no First Amendment value for its own sake. JUSTICE KAGAN. Well,

Anthony M. Kennedy 2:21

I'm not sure that that's quite correct. It is said it often, but always in context where it is well understood that speech can injure defamation. Gertz, page 12 of your brief, you make this point, and it's what Justice Sotomayor is indicating. You think there's no value to falsity. But I simply can't find that in our cases, and I think it's a sweeping proposition to say that there's no value to falsity. Falsity is a way in which we contrast what is false and what is true.

Donald B. Verrilli Jr. 2:59

I want to be — I want to respond with precision, Justice Kennedy, that the — I think what this Court, and Goertz is a good example, has done is to draw a line, and that line — and I think It is Gertz itself that contains this Court's statement that false statements of fact have no First Amendment value. That doesn't automatically mean that a false statement of fact lacks First Amendment protection. But that's

Anthony M. Kennedy 3:25

in the context of a defamation case.

Donald B. Verrilli Jr. 3:27

Yes. And

Anthony M. Kennedy 3:27

you want to take the Gertz case, where it's well understood that defamation is actionable, and say that as a general matter, the government can inveigh

Donald B. Verrilli Jr. 3:39

against what's false. The — No, I'm trying to say something much narrower than that, Justice Kennedy, that with respect to factually false statements, the government has the authority, if it can meet the breathing space principles that this Court's cases have articulated along with the recognition that factually false statements have no intrinsic First Amendment value, those are substantial constraints, but they are substantial constraints that are satisfied in this case because the Stolen Valor Act regulates a very narrowly drawn and specific category of calculated factual falsehood, a verifiably false claim that an individual has won a military honor, and that's information that is within the — and only punishes speech about yourself.

Donald B. Verrilli Jr. 4:27

So it is speech that's uniquely within the knowledge of the individual speaker.

Elena Kagan 4:31

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR. Suppose, General Burley, that the decorations were left out and Congress had said, I don't like people — saying that they were in the Marine Corps for 25 years when they never served for a single day in any armed force.