U.S. Sues Xavier Alvarez for False Military Decorations Claims - Essay Sample

Introduction

The U.S vs. Alvarez case was about Xavier Alvarez being sued by the U.S government for false claims of having been awarded military decorations. Alvarez had made the claims at a water district board meeting where he was an elected member. In the meeting, Alvarez claimed that he was a retired from the United States marine in 2001. He further explained that during his time of service, he was wounded multiple times, and in the year 1987, he received a congressional medal of honor for his service (Liebmann, 2014). The claims were recorded in a tape recording which was later obtained by federal agents. As a result, federal prosecutors sued Alvarez for the violation of the Stolen Valor Act. The Stolen Valor Act was signed into law in 2005. The Central District Court of California, later on, ordered Alvarez to pay $ 5000 and a three years' probation sentence.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

However, Alvarez appealed the decision made by the Central District Court of California at the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In the appeal, Alvarez argued that the Stolen Valor Act had violated the first amendments, freedom of speech. The act had negatively influenced the first amendments rights of speech since Alvarez was charged for freely expressing himself (Barnum, 2012). In the first amendments, each citizen has the right to express themselves through speech. Any activity that might hinder ones freedom of expression will be considered to have violated the clauses. The Stolen Valor Act states that any individual found to falsely identifying him or her through writing or verbally to have received military decorations from the U.S military will be charged under the act (Liebmann, 2014). Further law claims that the individual will be imprisoned or fined or receive both charges. As a result, the bill ignored the first amendments rights of speech hence making it a violation of the amendments.

The stolen valor act s quite silent on the outright repercussions of the violators. Therefore Alvarez was well informed about his decision to appeal the imprisonment sentence which he argued contravened the first amendment on the right of speech. The right to speak according to the first amendment does not limit anyone to specifics of communication. In essence, it is also right to support the assertions by the Alvarez that his rights were contravened by the court through the attempt to gag his expression (Liebmann, 2014). He could argue that his speech was more figurative other than real therefore he should not be punished for his expression. The need for the considerations of all fundamentals of legislations n determining the overall citizen's lives without discrimination or disregard of the rights.

The case was relevant, in that it acted as an eye-opener. It showed that the three arms of the government each had its limit of power. For instance, the legislature passed the Stolen Valor Act to punish those who are found to making false claims of being members of the military service. On the other hand, the judiciary rules out that the act violates the right to have a free speech, which is under the First Amendment. Additionally, the case further made it open that act negatively affects the protected speech, which in turn puts the content providers at risk (Lieffring, 2012). In the case, the government argued that the false declaration made by Alvarez was not protected by the first amendments. It, therefore, meant that the Stolen Valor Act left a breathing room for statements that condemn military decorations. Lastly, the case resulted in an improvement in the awarding of military honors (Barnum, 2012). The Executive was forced to put into place a system that records all the data concerning military awards for easy verification.

The U.S court of appeal for the Ninth Circuit ruled the case in favor of Alvarez, by overruling the initial decision made at the Central District Court of California. As a result, the government decided to appeal to the Supreme Court. The United States Supreme Court ruled that the law had violated the first amendments. As a result of the ruling, through the legislation, Congress decided to modify the 2005 Stolen Valor Act. The new reforms were passed in the Stolen Valor Act of 2013, which cautioned against wearing of military awards without legal approval, and prohibited the wearing of the medals, by fraudsters who aim at receiving money benefits (Liebmann, 2014). However, the new reforms still caution against claims which are false about the receiving of military medals.

Additionally, the decision made by the U.S Supreme Court influenced the decisions that will be made by the lower courts concerning the first amendment. For example, Bible Believers vs. Wayne County case, the Bible Believers had filled a lawsuit against Wayne County for the infringement of their first amendment right of speech (Maskell, 2015). The group had been attacked for expressing their views concerning the Muslim religion. On reporting the attack to the sheriff's office, no actions were taken against the offenders. Furthermore, the group was cautioned that they would be arrested for disorderly conduct. The case was first submitted to the Federal district court which ruled in favor of Wayne County. On appealing of the decision at the U.S Court of appeal for the Sixth Circuit, the motion was ruled in favor of the Bible Believers (Lieffring, 2012). The argument stated that the first amendment shields offensive speech as well as offensive speech. Therefore, Wayne County had violated free speech rights.

Conclusion

In conclusion, U.S vs. Alvarez case involved two arguments. The plaintiff, which was the government, argued that the 2005 Stolen Valor Act had been violated through claims being a member of the U.S army and receiving of military awards (Lieffring, 2012). On the hand, the defendant argued that the first amendment right to speech had been infringed by the act. On appeal to the supreme court of the United States, the verdict was in favor of the defendant, which stated that the law had infringed the freedom of speech, which is shielded in the first amendment (Liebmann, 2014). As a result, Congress was forced to make changes to the 2005 Stolen Valor Act to comply with the Supreme Court ruling. Additionally, the decision made by the U.S Supreme Court had a binding effect on all the lower courts (Barnum, 2012). For instance, Bible Believers vs. Wayne County was ruled in favor of the plaintiff. The ruling argued that unpopular of offensive speech was shielded under the first amendment. Lastly, cases of offensive speech are still on the debate as to whether they should be under the first amendment or not.

Reference

Barnum, J. C., (2012). Encouraging Congress to encourage speech: reflections on United States V. Alvarez. Alb. L. Rev., 76, 527.

Liebmann, L. U. (2014). Fraud and First Amendment Protections of False Speech: How United States v. Alvarez Impacts Constitutional Challenges to Ag-Gag Laws. Pace Envtl. L. Rev., 31, 565.

Lieffring, S., (2012). First Amendment and the right to lie: Regulating knowingly false campaign speech after United States v. Alvarez. Minn. L. Rev., 97, 1047.

Maskell, K. M., (2015). Speech and Safety: Interest Balancing in First Amendment Analysis As Applied to Bible Believers v. Wayne County. Ohio St. LJ Furthermore, 76, 141.