U.S. v. Alvarez

638 F. 3d 666 (Ninth Cir., 2011), cert. granted (2011)

  1. Transcript of the Oral Argument in the Supreme Court
  2. Media Coalition's Amicus Brief in Support of Respondent
  3. Government's Reply Brief in the Supreme Court
  4. Respondent's Brief on the Merits in the Supreme Court
  5. Government's Opening Brief in the Supreme Court
  6. Joint Appendix to Government's Opening Brief in the Supreme Court
  7. Government's Reply Brief re: Respondent's Opposition to Cert Petition
  8. Respondent's Brief in Opposition to Petition for Certiorari
  9. Government's Petition for Certiorari in the Supreme Court
  10. Ninth Circuit Order Denying Rehearing En Banc
  11. Ninth Circuit Opinion

Most Recent News: The Supreme Court heard oral argument in U.S. v. Alvarez on February 22. The transcript of the argument is available here.

On January 20, Media Coalition filed an amicus brief, asking the Supreme Court to uphold the Ninth Circuit's ruling and strike down the Stolen Valor Act.

The brief is signed by Media Coalition members American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, Association of American Publishers, Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, Entertainment Merchants Association, and Freedom to Read Foundation. The American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, PEN American Center, Village Voice Media, and Writers Guild of America, West also signed on to the brief.

Read Media Coalition's amicus brief

Read Media Coalition's press release announcing its filing of an amicus brief

Merits Briefs filed in the Supreme Court:  

Other amicus briefs filed in support of Mr. Alvarez and the Ninth Circuit's ruling include:

Those filing amicus briefs in support of the government, which argues for upholding the Stolen Valor Act, include:

One amicus brief was filed on behalf of neither party by:

History: U.S. v. Alvarez is a challenge to the Stolen Valor Act of 2005, which criminalizes telling lies about military honors.

The Supreme Court granted the government's petition for certiorari after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the law unconstitutional under the First Amendment and denied the government's petition for rehearing en banc.

The government contends in its opening brief on the merits in the Supreme Court that falsely claiming to have earned a military medal or other honor demeans the value of such recognition. The plaintiff, Xavier Alvarez, contends in his brief that the Stolen Valor Act infringes on his right to free speech and, as the Ninth Circuit found when it ruled in the case, is not written narrowly enough to achieve its aim of protecting the sanctity of military medals without interfering with First Amendment protections.