It had been passed by Congress as an effort to stem instances where people falsely claimed to have earned the medal in an attempt to protect the valor of legitimate recipients.

Another two justices concluded that while false statements were entitled to some protection, the Stolen Valor Act of 2005 was invalid because it could have achieved its objectives in less restrictive ways.

Several months after the decision, both chambers of Congress passed new versions of the Stolen Valor Act of 2005 based on the suggestions in the Court's opinion.

[3] Proponents in Congress argued that the law was passed to prevent imposters from "stealing the valor" of soldiers returning from engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[4] In 2007, at a Three Valley Water District Board meeting in Claremont, California, new member Xavier Alvarez introduced himself by saying, "I'm a retired Marine of 25 years.

This decision was reversed by a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit which held the law invalid.

Almost immediately Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked Verrilli a hypothetical: During the Vietnam War, a protester holds up a sign that says, "I won a Purple Heart – for killing babies."

"[16] On June 28, 2012, a divided Court held that the prohibition against making false statements of having been awarded a military medal under the Stolen Valor Act of 2005 violated the First Amendment.

"The Act by its plain terms," Kennedy wrote, "applies to a false statement made at any time, in any place, to any person".

"[23] Additionally, Kennedy wrote that 'counter-speech' was a sufficient solution to the problem: "It is a fair assumption that any true holders of the Medal who had heard of Alvarez's false claims would have been fully vindicated by the community's expression of outrage...

Our constitutional tradition stands against the idea that we need Oceania’s Ministry of Truth," invoking George Orwell's novel Nineteen Eighty-Four.

"[26] After holding that Congress could create a database of those who had received the medal, among other alternatives to the existing law, Breyer said that there were lesser restrictive means to achieve the government's interest.

[28] For Alito, the ruling had "[broken] sharply from a long line of cases recognizing that the right to free speech does not protect false factual statements that inflict real harm and serve no legitimate interest.

"[29] "The Stolen Valor Act [of 2005]," Alito wrote, "represents the judgment of the people's elected representatives that false statements about military awards are very different from false statements about civilian awards... [the Act] is a narrow law enacted to address an important problem, and it presents no threat to freedom of expression.

[33] A spokesperson for the Veterans of Foreign Wars said "Despite the ruling, the VFW will continue to challenge far-fetched stories, and to publicize these false heroes to the broadest extent possible as a deterrent to others.”[32] Harold A. Fritz, a recipient of the medal from the Vietnam War, agreed with the VFW that "It’s more than just a piece of metal suspended on a piece of cloth on a pin.

"We felt good about portions of the decision which suggest that a more narrowly tailored bill which incorporates traditional fraud elements would be upheld," said Fang Wong, national commander of the American Legion.

Alvarez remained in legal trouble due to allegations that he defrauded the government by falsely receiving health insurance benefits.

In addition to a wrongful claim of receiving one of the listed military awards, intent to gain some benefit or something of value by fraud was required.