(CN) - A man who lied about receiving the Medal of Honor should not face criminal liability, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday.
"Lying was his habit," the court's lead opinion opens. "Xavier Alvarez, the respondent here, lied when he said that he played hockey for the Detroit Red Wings and that he once married a starlet from Mexico. But when he lied in announcing he held the Congressional Medal of Honor, respondent ventured onto new ground; for that lie violates a federal criminal statute, the Stolen Valor Act of 2005."
Alvarez had told colleagues on a water district board in Los Angeles that he had been awarded the Medal of Honor in 1987 after 25 years of service with the Marines.
He also claimed to have rescued the American ambassador during the Iranian hostage crisis, and said he had been shot in the back as he returned to the Embassy to save the American flag.
After pleaded guilty to violating the Stolen Valor Act, a federal judge ordered him to pay $5,000, serve three years of probation and do community service.
But a split panel of the 9th Circuit concluded in August 2010 that the Stolen Valor Act could not criminalize speech. The full court denied an en banc hearing of that case in March 2011, with Chief Judge Alex Kozinski writing, "Saints may always tell the truth, but for mortals living means lying."
After the Supreme Court agreed to take over, a divided panel in the 10th Circuit upheld the law against a man who misrepresented himself as an Iraqi War veteran with a Purple Heart and a Silver Star.
The justices compared the case at hand to one they decided last year involving the controversial Westboro Baptist Church. In that decision, the court held that the First Amendment protects hateful picketing at military funerals led by the church's founder, Fred Phelps Sr.
Applying the same scrutiny for Alvarez, the court noted that "statutes suppressing or restricting speech must be judged by the sometimes inconvenient principles of the First Amendment."
"By this measure, the statutory provisions under which respondent was convicted must be held invalid, and his conviction must be set aside," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor.
Holding otherwise could lead to Orwellian results, the decision states.