United States v. Alvarez
Judge: Kennedy
Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Military Law
The Stolen Valor Act
makes it a crime to falsely claim receipt of military decorations or
medals and provides an enhanced penalty if the Congressional Medal of
Honor is involved, 18 U. S. C. 704 (b),(c). After pleading guilty to
falsely claiming that he had received the Medal of Honor, Alvarez
challenged the Act as unconstitutional. The Ninth Circuit held that the
Act is invalid under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court affirmed.
Characterizing the law as a content-based restriction on protected
speech, the Court applied the “most exacting scrutiny.” Falsity alone
does not take speech outside the First Amendment. While the
government’s interest in protecting the integrity of the Medal of Honor
is beyond question, the First Amendment requires a direct causal link
between the restriction imposed and the injury to be prevented; that
link was not established. The government had no evidence that the
public’s general perception of military awards is diluted by false
claims or that counter-speech, such as the ridicule Alvarez received
online and in the press, would not suffice to achieve its interest. The
law does not represent the “least restrictive means among available,
effective alternatives.” The government could likely protect the
integrity of the military awards system by creating a database of Medal
winners accessible and searchable. Dissenting Justices Alito, Scalia,
and Thomas viewed the Act as significantly limited and necessary to the
important governmental objective.
Nat'l Fed'n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius
Judge: Breyer
Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Health Law, Insurance Law
In a 5-4 ruling, the
Supreme Court has upheld the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care
Act. While only four Justices found its requirement that certain
individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance
(26 U.S.C. 5000A) constitutional under the Commerce Clause, Chief
Justice Roberts found it constitutional by reasonably characterizing it
as a tax. Chief Justice Roberts wrote: “it is not our role to forbid it,
or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness." The penalty is to be paid to
the IRS, along with the individual’s income taxes. In a limited ruling,
the Court held that the Act’s “Medicaid expansion” is unconstitutional
in threatening states with loss of existing Medicaid funding if they
decline to comply, but that the penalty provision is severable (which
means that failure of that provision does not cause the entire Act to
fail). The Act requires that state programs provide Medicaid coverage by
2014 to adults with incomes up to 133 percent of the federal poverty
level, (many states now cover adults with children only if their income
is considerably lower, and do not cover childless adults at all) and
increases federal funding to cover states’ costs, 42 U.S.C. 1396d(y)(1).
The decision leaves intact less controversial provisions, protecting
individuals with preexisting conditions, allowing children to be covered
by parents’ insurance until age 26, and prohibiting higher costs for
insuring women.
At the Law Office of Samuel E. Thomas, we use detailed analytical techniques, piercing investigation strategies and proven legal skills to offer effective representation in high-asset divorce situations.
ReplyDelete