Stolen Valor Act of 2005

Stolen Valor Act of 2005

Full title	An Act to amend title 18, United States Code, to enhance protections relating to the reputation and meaning of the Medal of Honor and other military decorations and awards, and for other purposes.
Enacted by the	109th United States Congress
Effective	December 20, 2006
Citations
Pub.L. 109-437
Stat.	120 Stat. 3266–3267
Codification
Legislative history
Introduced in the Senate as S. 1998 by Kent Conrad (D-ND) on November 10, 2005 Committee consideration by: Senate Judiciary, House Judiciary Passed the Senate on September 7, 2006 (Unanimous consent) Passed the House on December 6, 2006 (Voice vote) Signed into law by President George W. Bush on December 20, 2006
Major amendments
Supreme Court cases
United States v. Alvarez

The Stolen Valor Act of 2005, signed into law by President George W. Bush on December 20, 2006, is a U.S. law that broadens the provisions of previous U.S. law addressing the unauthorized wear, manufacture, or sale of any military decorations and medals. It makes it a federal misdemeanor offense to falsely represent oneself as having received any U.S. military decoration or medal. If convicted, defendants may be imprisoned for up to six months, unless the decoration lied about is the Medal of Honor, in which case imprisonment could be up to one year.

The Act was first introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives on July 19, 2005, by Representative John Salazar, a Democrat from Colorado, as H.R. 3352. It was introduced into the Senate by Senator Kent Conrad, a Democrat from North Dakota, on November 10, 2005, as S. 1998. The Senate version was passed unanimously on September 7, 2006. The Senate version then went to the same House Judiciary Committee that held the House version. The Act briefly stalled, but the House subsequently passed the Senate version, S. 1998, on December 6, 2006.

The purpose of the Act is to strengthen the provisions of federal law (18 U.S.C. § 704) by broadening its scope and strengthening penalties. Specific new provisions in the Act include: granting more authority to Federal law enforcement officers; broadening the law to cover false claims whereas previously an overt act had to be committed; covering mailing and shipping of medals; and protecting the reputation and meaning of military heroism medals. Under the act, it is illegal for unauthorized persons to wear, buy, sell, barter, trade, or manufacture “any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the armed forces of the United States, or any of the service medals or badges awarded to the members of such forces.” In the 18 months after the act was enacted, the Chicago Tribune estimates 20 prosecutions. The number is increasing as awareness about the law spreads.

The Act was likely passed to address the issue of persons claiming to have been awarded military awards for which they were not entitled, and exploiting their deception for personal gain. For example, as of June 2, 2006, there were only 120 living Medal of Honor recipients, but there were far more known imposters. There are also large numbers of people fraudulently claiming to be Navy SEALS and Army Special Forces, among others.

Opposition and legal challenges

The Orders and Medals Society of America (OMSA), an organization of collectors, had opposed the bill in its current form. OMSA is of the opinion that the changes to 18 U.S.C. § 704 included wording that implied that any movement or exchange of medals would be illegal.

In January 2010, a legal challenge concerning the constitutionality of the Stolen Valor Act was filed in the U.S. District Court in Denver, Colorado. Rick Strandlof founded an organization called Colorado Veterans Alliance, and was accused of posing as Marine Captain "Rick Duncan" and claiming to have received a Silver Star and Purple Heart in the Iraq War to obtain funds for his organization. Strandlof's attorney believes the law is too vague and that "protecting the reputation of military decorations is insufficient to survive [strict scrutiny]." The Rutherford Institute, a Virginia-based civil liberties group, joined in the case on January 20, 2010. "Such expression remains within the presumptive protection afforded pure speech by the First Amendment," the Institute's attorney wrote. "As such, the Stolen Valor Act is an unconstitutional restraint on the freedom of speech."

"Another point, with regards to people wearing so-called unauthorized military uniforms, is that the government undermines its own case by both selling surplus uniforms on the civilian market and allowing its authorized vendors to sell uniforms on the open market. I don't see a jury in the world convicting anyone of alleged illegal uniform wear if they can show they purchased it from a surplus source or official vendor. If the government didn't want civilians wearing military uniforms it shouldn't be selling them on the civilian market."

Act ruled unconstitutional

United States v. Strandlof

On July 16, 2010, a federal judge in Denver ruled the Stolen Valor Act is “facially unconstitutional” because it violates free speech and dismissed the criminal case against Strandlof who lied about being an Iraq war veteran. Strandlof, 32, was charged with five misdemeanors related to violating the Act – specifically, making false claims about receiving military decorations.

U.S. District Judge Robert E. Blackburn issued his decision rejecting the prosecution’s argument that lying about having military medals dilutes their meaning and significance. “This wholly unsubstantiated assertion is, frankly, shocking and, indeed, unintentionally insulting to the profound sacrifices of military personnel the Stolen Valor Act purports to honor,” Blackburn wrote. "To suggest that the battlefield heroism of our servicemen and women is motivated in any way, let alone in a compelling way, by considerations of whether a medal may be awarded simply defies my comprehension." Attorney Chris Beall, who filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the ACLU of Colorado, said the decision is remarkable. “The First Amendment protects speech we don't like," he said. "We don't need the First Amendment for speech people like. The government cannot criminalize a statement simply because it is false, no matter how important the statement is.” Beall points out Strandlof wasn't charged with stealing money meant for the veterans group, adding that laws are already in place for those crimes. “That’s plain-old, regular-vanilla everyday fraud, and we do prosecute that every day,” he said. “Congress does not need a special statute to prevent people from using false claims of valor in order to prevent fraud.” John Wagner, executive director of the Warrior Legacy Foundation, a veterans group that lobbied for Strandlof’s prosecution, said he will push for an appeal. A spokesman for the U.S. attorney in Denver said prosecutors are reviewing the decision and haven’t decided whether to appeal. The spokesman said that decision would be made by the U.S. Justice Department in Washington and prosecutors in Denver.

On January 27, 2012, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals overruled the district court and reinstated the charges against Strandlof. Two judges on the three-judge panel held that false statements are not worthy of constitutional protection. In dissent, Judge Jerome Holmes wrote that the majority was reading language into the act to justify upholding it.

United States v. Alvarez

There is a similar case in California under appeal, United States v. Alvarez. The court decided Alvarez on August 17, 2010, ruling the Stolen Valor Act unconstitutional. Specifically, in the 2–1 decision, Judge Milan Smith stated for the court that lies not within traditionally unprotected subsets of false facts are subject to First Amendment protection, the Stolen Valor Act is not subject to defamation law precedent, and there’s no compelling reason government interest in banning such lies.

“The right to speak and write whatever one chooses – including, to some degree, worthless, offensive and demonstrable untruths – without cowering in fear of a powerful government is, in our view, an essential component of the protection afforded by the First Amendment,” Judge Smith wrote. If lying about a medal can be classified as a crime, Smith said, so many everyday lies could become criminal acts, such as lying about one’s age, misrepresenting one’s financial status on Facebook, or telling one’s mother falsehoods about drinking, smoking or sex.

On March 21, 2011, a majority of judges in the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit refused to rehear the Alvarez case en banc. In the order refusing to hear the case en banc, Judge Alex Kozinski issued a lengthy concurrence, responding to critics of the decision and asserting that the First Amendment covers most varieties of lying and misrepresentation, where not otherwise unprotected by the First Amendment under the traditional view. The traditional view holds that only a certain variety of speech are exempt from standard constitutional scrutiy such as fraud, fighting words, defamation, incitement, and speech attendant to the commission of a crime. Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain dissented from the denial of rehearing arguing that false representations are not per se entitled to First Amendment protection.

On October 17, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to consider the validity of the law.

While both the Ninth Circuit and the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado held the Stolen Valor Act unconstitutional, legal scholars are not all in agreement that lying should receive constitutional protection. In Alvarez, Judge Bybee dissented from his two colleagues noting that the Supreme Court has consistently held that knowingly false statements do not enjoy constitutional protection. These cases, however, all related in large part to defamation cases, which this was not. And while a major concern for the Alvarez majority was the absence of a damage requirement in the Stolen Valor Act, as is present in actions for fraud and defamation, there are numerous laws today which criminally punish lying including perjury, “False Swearing,” a perjury-like statute in which simply telling a lie under oath is a crime, lying on a FAFSA or military enlistment application, and lying about the qualifications or integrity of a judge or candidate for judicial office. The Ninth Circuit upheld this regulation against a Free Speech challenge in 1993, declaring that even negligent false statements made by an attorney about a judge could be punished.

Other countries

• Under the Federal Defence Act (Australia), persons falsely representing themselves as returned soldiers, sailors or airmen, or wearing decorations that were not earned, can face up to six months' jail and a $3,300 fine. The fine is actually made up of 30 Penalty Units, where each PU is now worth $110, which is easily adjusted according to inflation.

• The Military Decorations and Distinctive Badges Act 1918 (New Zealand) was last amended in 1974. It centers on fraudulently wearing military decorations not awarded to them. The fine does not exceed $500. The penalties section imposes one month's jail, or a fine not exceeding $40.

• In November 2008, a man who posed as a member of the SAS was thrown out of the Royal British Legion after he sent a photo of himself wearing false medals to the RAF with a request for a replacement military baton.

See also

• Mitchell Paige, Medal of Honor recipient who later tracked imposters
• Stolen Valor, book by B.G. Burkett and Glenna Whitley chronicling "phony" Vietnam veterans.

External links

• "Colorado Congressman John Salazar Introduces Stolen Valor Act of 2005". HomeofHeroes.com. July 22, 2005. http://www.homeofheroes.com/herobill/index.html. Retrieved 2006-12-10. 

• "H. R. 3352 The Stolen Valor Act of 2005". http://www.homeofheroes.com/herobill/hr3352.html. Retrieved 2006-12-10. 

• "Stolen Valor Act of 2005". POW Network. http://www.pownetwork.org/phonies/phonies90.htm. Retrieved 2006-12-10. 

• John Hoellwarth (December 12, 2006). "Blowhards, beware: Congress passes Stolen Valor Act, targets false military award claims". Army Times. http://www.armytimes.com/legacy/new/1-292925-2419015.php. Retrieved 2011-10-17. 

• The Stolen Valor Act of 2005
• Congressional Medal of Honor Society
• Stolen Valor web site, the book the Stolen Valor Act was named after
• 22 August 2011 - Feds ask Supreme Court to Validate Stolen Valor Act

False Heroes

• The PoW Network WANNABE'S A NATIONWIDE EPIDEMIC
• Fake Veterans
• David Hackworth's fraud file
• Joe Johns (2009-10-12). "Fake veteran faces 'stolen valor' charge". CNN. http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/12/fake.veteran/index.html. Retrieved 2009-10-12. 
• Brian Dennehy