U.S. v. Robbins

• Decision Date: 03 January 2011
• Docket Number: Case No. 2:10CR00006.
• Citation: 759 F.Supp.2d 815
• Parties: UNITED STATES of Americav.Ronnie L. ROBBINS, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia

759 F.Supp.2d 815

UNITED STATES of America

v.Ronnie L. ROBBINS, Defendant.

Case No. 2:10CR00006.

United States District Court, W.D. Virginia.

Jan. 3, 2011.

Zachary T. Lee, Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, VA, for the United States.R. Wayne Austin, Scyphers & Austin, P.C., Abingdon, VA, for Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER

JAMES P. JONES, District Judge.

The defendant in this criminal case moves to quash an indictment charging a violation of the Stolen Valor Act, which prohibits a person from making false claims about the receipt of a military decoration or medal, on the ground that the law violates his right to free speech under the First Amendment. For the reasons stated, I will deny the motion.

I

The Stolen Valor Act of 2005, Pub.L. No. 109–437, 120 Stat. 3266 (2006), provides that

[w]hoever falsely represents himself or herself, verbally or in writing, to have been awarded any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the Armed Forces of the United States, any of the service medals or badges awarded to the members of such forces, the ribbon, button, or rosette of any such badge, decoration, or medal, or any colorable imitation of such item shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

18 U.S.C.A. 704(b) (West Supp.2010).

The Indictment returned by a grand jury of this court charges the defendant, Ronnie L. Robbins, with violating § 704(b).¹ It alleges that Robbins served in the United States Army on active duty from 1972 to 1975, but did not serve overseas or in any combat capacity and was not awarded or entitled to any medals or awards related to such service.² The Indictment charges that Robbins was a member of the Veterans of Foreign Wars (“VFW”), which requires that its members have overseas service in a foreign conflict. While running for reelection to local political office, Robbins produced and distributed campaign material that stated that he was a recipient of the Vietnam Service Medal and the Vietnam Campaign Medal. Robbins also wore the Vietnam Campaign Medal, the Vietnam Service Medal, and the Combat Infantryman's Badge on his military uniform at events he attended as a member of the VFW honor guard. Additionally, Robbins allegedly provided falsely altered documentation to the VFW misrepresenting his military service and asserting that he had been awarded the Vietnam Service Medal and the Vietnam Campaign Medal. Finally, it is alleged that Robbins provided altered documents to a local newspaper corroborating that he had received those medals.

In his Motion to Quash, Robbins challenges 18 U.S.C.A. § 704(b) on its face as an unconstitutional restriction of the right to free speech protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In response, the government argues that because it involves false statements of fact, the speech regulated by § 704(b) is outside the protection of the First Amendment. The defendant's motion has been briefed and heard and is ripe for decision.

II

There apparently have been few prosecutions by the government under the Stolen Valor Act. However, recently it has been has been found unconstitutional twice—once by the majority of a panel of the United State Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, United States v. Alvarez, 617 F.3d 1198 (9th Cir.2010), petition for reh'g and reh'g en banc filed, No. 08–50345 (Sept. 30, 2010), and once in the District of Colorado, United States v. Strandlof, No. 09–cr–00497–REB, 746 F.Supp.2d 1183, 2010 WL 4235395 (D.Colo. July 16, 2010), appeal docketed, No. 10–1358 (10th Cir. Aug. 13, 2010). While the defendant naturally urges me to follow these decisions, I respectfully disagree with them, and find that the false statements of fact implicated by the statute are not protected by the First Amendment.

A

The First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech.” U.S. Const. amend. I. Despite this broad language, there are recognized categories of speech that are excluded from this protection. “ ‘[T]he freedom of speech’ referred to by the First Amendment does not include a freedom to disregard these traditional limitations.” R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, Minn., 505 U.S. 377, 383, 112 S.Ct. 2538, 120 L.Ed.2d 305 (1992).³

One of the recognized categories involves falsity. While “there is no such thing as a false idea” undeserving of protection, Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 339, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974), “there is no constitutional value in false statements of fact.” Id. at 340, 94 S.Ct. 2997.

Although the declaration in Gertz was made without citation and was recognized as dicta by the Supreme Court in Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1, 19, 110 S.Ct. 2695, 111 L.Ed.2d 1 (1990), since Gertz, the assertion that false statements of fact are not protected has been repeated and relied upon and is now the prevailing understanding of the law. See, e.g., Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of U.S., Inc., 466 U.S. 485, 504 n. 22, 104 S.Ct. 1949, 80 L.Ed.2d 502 (1984); see also Jonathan D. Varat, Deception and the First Amendment: A Central, Complex, and Somewhat Curious Relationship, 53 UCLA L.Rev. 1107, 1112–13 (2006).

The general exclusion of false statements from First Amendment protection is consistent with Supreme Court cases dealing not only with defamation, but also with fraud, see Ill. ex rel. Madigan v. Telemarketing Assocs., Inc., 538 U.S. 600, 612, 123 S.Ct. 1829, 155 L.Ed.2d 793 (2003) (“[T]he First Amendment does not shield fraud.”), and commercial speech, see Va. State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Va. Citizens Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748, 771, 96 S.Ct. 1817, 48 L.Ed.2d 346 (1976) (holding that false statements in advertising are not protected).

On the other hand, despite the assertion in Gertz that false statements are valueless, the Court did not intend to exclude all false statements from the protection of the First Amendment: “Although the erroneous statement of fact is not worthy of constitutional protection, it is nevertheless inevitable in free debate.” Gertz, 418 U.S. at 340, 94 S.Ct. 2997. “The First Amendment requires that we protect some falsehood in order to protect speech that matters.” Id. at 341, 94 S.Ct. 2997. Therefore, Gertz stands for the proposition that false statements of fact are generally unprotected, but some speech—“speech that matters”—is protected.

For these reasons, the relevant rule in this case is that false statements of fact are generally unprotected, aside from the protection for “speech that matters.” Id. at 340–41, 94 S.Ct. 2997.

B

Before determining whether the speech at issue is “speech that matters,” and thus not covered by the exception to constitutional protection, I must determine what speech is covered by the Stolen Valor Act. It is a long-held canon of construction that a statute should be read, if reasonable, to avoid constitutional problems, because “[t]he courts will ... not lightly assume that Congress intended to infringe constitutionally protected liberties.” Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Fla. Gulf Coast Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council, 485 U.S. 568, 575, 108 S.Ct. 1392, 99 L.Ed.2d 645 (1988). The unconstitutionality of the statute need not be plain in order to apply this rule of statutory construction, but only doubtful without it. Almendarez–Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 250, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998) (Scalia, J., dissenting).

Applying this established canon of construction, the statute here should be read narrowly with certain reasonable limitations so that it is not facially overbroad, impermissibly applying to protected speech.⁴ Importantly, “[f]acial overbreadth has not been invoked when a limiting construction has been or could be placed on the challenged statute.” Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 613, 93 S.Ct. 2908, 37 L.Ed.2d 830 (1973). By reading the statute narrowly with reasonable limitations, the constitutional problem of overbroadness is avoided.

The government concedes that the statute should be read to criminalize only knowingly false statements. I conclude that the statute also should be read to include a mens-rea requirement that the defendant intended to deceive. See United States v. Esparza–Ponce, 193 F.3d 1133, 1137–38 (9th Cir.1999) (holding that in order to avoid First Amendment question, criminal statute punishing false representation of U.S. citizenship should be read to require proof that person to whom false statement was made had good reason to inquire into nationality status); United States v. Achtner, 144 F.2d 49, 52 (2d Cir.1944) (same).

Like the actual malice requirement applied in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 279–80, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964), the “knowingly” limitation will prevent suppression of speech that is not intentionally false and deceptive but rather is the result of mistake or confusion. Additionally, the criminal intent requirement will protect speakers who utter protected false statements in fiction, in parody, or as rhetorical hyperbole. See Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 57, 108 S.Ct. 876, 99 L.Ed.2d 41 (1988) (holding that liability for publishing an ad parody is inconsistent with the First Amendment); Greenbelt Coop. Publ'g Ass'n v. Bresler, 398 U.S. 6, 14, 90 S.Ct. 1537, 26 L.Ed.2d 6 (1970) (holding that liability for publishing rhetorical hyperbole “would subvert the most fundamental meaning of a free press”). The limitations also ensure that speakers of ambiguous, but innocently-made statements are not punished when the statement is incorrectly understood. Read with these limitations, only outright lies, not ideas, are punishable.

These limitations are consistent with the balancing test employed by the Supreme Court in First Amendment cases regarding defamation. See Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 472 U.S. 749, 755–56, 105 S.Ct. 2939, 86 L.Ed.2d 593 (1985) (explaining the balancing of interests that occurred in Sull...