Senate passes Stolen Valor Act 2013, H.R. 258

Rep. Joseph Heck of Nevada, as lead author of a long list of co-authors from the House, introduced H.R. 258, the Stolen Valor Act 2013, to amend Title 18, section 704 of the United States Code.

As passed in the House on May 20th and now in the Senate on May 22nd, the Stolen Valor Act 2013 amends the federal criminal code to rewrite provisions relating to fraudulent claims about military service to subject to a fine, imprisonment for not more than one year, or both an individual who, with intent to obtain money, property, or other tangible benefit, fraudulently holds himself or herself out to be a recipient of medals or honor authorized by Congress for the armed services, such as the Congressional Medal of Honor, the Purple Heart and the Combat Action Medal, just to name a few.  H.R. 258 will be going to the President’s desk for his signature.

Earlier, Congress had enacted the Stolen Valor Act in 2005 to expand the existing prohibition against wearing, manufacturing, or selling military decorations or medals without legal authorization. The 2005 Act imposed penalties for falsely representing oneself as a recipient of any medal or honor authorized by Congress for the armed services.

In 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the 2005 Stolen Valor Act as unconstitutional under the First Amendment, noting that the “simple act of lying” even about receipt of a military decoration, is, by itself, protected speech.  The Court reasoned that although the “Government’s interest in protecting the integrity of the Medal of Honor is beyond question . . . “[t]here must be a direct causal link between the restriction imposed and injury to be prevented.”

If signed into law as expected, the Stolen Valor Act 2013 in H.R. 258 will make it a crime to fraudulently hold oneself out to be a recipient of any enumerated military decoration with the intent to obtain money, property or other tangible benefit.  The term “fraudulently” incorporates the necessary knowledge requirement explained in last year’s 2012 Court opinion which indicated that false claims made in furtherance of fraud would be unprotected and appropriately subject to government restriction.