CASE BRIEF: UNITED STATES V. FIELDS Introduction This brief contains all the inf

Question

CASE BRIEF: UNITED STATES V. FIELDS

Introduction

This brief contains all the information that you need in order to reach a decision and draft an opinion in a case. In this case file, you will first find the background facts as they pertain to the law and the details of the case. Then, your brief presents the history of the case itself, including excerpts from the opinion and dissent of the ruling Abel Fields is appealing before you and the rest of the Supreme Court. Your brief concludes with precedents you need to consider.

Facts

These are the facts you should know about your case.

The Law

The Stolen Valor Act was signed into law in 2006. According to this law, it is a crime to make false claims about receiving military medals and awards. The law banned “fraudulent claims surrounding the receipt of the Medal of Honor, the distinguished-service cross, the Navy cross, the Air Force cross, the Purple Heart, and other decorations and medals awarded by the President or the Armed Forces of the United States” (Stolen Valor Act of 2005).

According to the law, these fraudulent claims “damage the reputation and meaning of such decorations and medals” (Stolen Valor Act of 2005).

A person guilty of violating the Stolen Valor Act could receive a fine, imprisonment up to six months, or both penalties together.

The Case

Abel Fields was a 39-year-old resident of a city in California. In 2011, he attended a city meeting about public safety. He spoke publicly at the meeting, explaining that his military experience gave him the knowledge to speak with authority about public safety issues. During his speech, he claimed that he had served in the military for eight years. He also claimed that he had received the Purple Heart, a prestigious medal.

Each of Fields’s claims was false. He had never served in the military, and he had never received a medal.

He was prosecuted and convicted under the Stolen Valor Act.Because he was found guilty, he was sentenced to pay a fine of $1,000.

Case History

This is the history of your case.

Fields appealed his decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. He argued that the Stolen Valor Act was unconstitutional, and that his right to free speech had been violated.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in his favor. However, the government appealed the decision, and the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.

Opinion

This excerpt comes from the opinion of the court of appeals judge who ruled in Fields’s favor.

The Stolen Valor Act applies only to pure speech. It does not consider whether this speech is damaging to others or profitable to the person that has lied. Instead, it imposes a criminal penalty of up to a year of imprisonment, plus a fine, simply for speaking or writing a false statement.

Laws that prevent harmful false speech center on lies told about others. A lie that is told about another person can be difficult to reverse. It can permanently damage that person’s reputation and well-being. However, a lie told about oneself and one’s own accomplishments is easier to reverse through other speech.Indeed, in Mr. Fields’s case, an effective way to reverse Mr. Fields’s falsehoods is to simply point out his lie. The First Amendment empowers the public to use its own free speech in response to Mr. Fields. A law is unnecessary.

The Stolen Valor Act is not only unnecessary, it also sets a dangerous precedent. If future acts follow the same principles, the government may forbid speech solely because it is a lie, even if that lie does not create damage. We agree that most intentionally false speech is not worthy of constitutional protection. We also agree that intentional and damaging lies can be made the subject of criminal law. However, we cannot adopt a rule as broad as the Stolen Valor Act without trampling on the fundamental right to freedom of speech.

Dissent

This excerpt comes from the opinion of a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals judge who dissented from the opinion of the court.

In its past decisions, the Supreme Court has reminded us that there are “categories of speech . . . fully outside the protection of the first amendment” (United States v. Stevens, 2010). The First Amendment has always permitted restrictions on speech.

In Gertz v. Robert Welch, the Supreme Court opinion wrote that there is a “social interest in order and morality” in preventing false speech. Protecting false speech constitutionally may damage this order and morality. A false statement damages both the subject of the falsehood and the listener who hears the false statement. By constitutionally protecting these statements, we protect a person’s ability to create disorder.

I believe the Act is constitutional as applied to Alvarez. It is not overly broad, and it does not set a dangerous precedent for future acts. Because the majority has rewritten established First Amendment law, I respectfully dissent.

Precedent

These are two previous cases that involve restrictions on free speech based on the content of speech. How do they apply to your case?

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1963)

The New York Times printed an advertisement that accused the Montgomery, Alabama, police department of misdeeds.However, the advertisement had many factual errors. The police commissioner, L. B. Sullivan, sued the Times and the writers of the advertisement.

According to the court:

the judgment in favor of Sullivan had to be overturned.

the Times could not be convicted of libel (false statements in print).

to convict, courts must prove that a person has acted with malice when making a false statement.

Texas v. Johnson (1989)

Gregory Johnson was convicted of burning a flag, based on a Texas law that made this action a crime. He appealed his conviction, and the Supreme Court heard his case.

According to the court:

Johnson’s conviction had to be overturned.

Texas’s law was unconstitutional.

governments cannot limit freedom of speech solely because the thing being said is offensive or disagreeable to others.

Issues

These are the main issues before you. What will you decide?

Was Abel Fields’s speech protected by the First Amendment?

Does the Stolen Valor Act violate the First Amendment?

Is a false statement allowed under the First Amendment if it does not damage or harm others?

Assignment Information

Purpose Write a Supreme Court opinion that describes your decision for United States v. Fields.

Assignment Prompt

In this assignment, you will write a three- to four-paragraph Supreme Court opinion for the fictional case of United States v. Fields. Remember, you are serving as a Supreme Court justice. Your opinion must summarize the facts of the case, state your decision, and cite precedent to support your ideas.

Assignment Instructions

Step 1: Carefully review the progress you have made up to this point. a) Take time to review the facts.

(1) Why was Abel Fields convicted?
(2) What law was he convicted under?
(3) How did the appeals court rule on the case?
(4) What has Fields argued in his case before the Supreme Court? (5) What are Fields's prosecutors arguing?

b) Take time to review precedent.
(1) What did New York Times v. Sullivan demonstrate about the right to make

false statements?

(2) What did Texas v. Johnson demonstrate about the right to disagreeable speech?

Step 2: Develop a three- to four-paragraph opinion.
a) Your opinion should be three to four paragraphs long and written in your own

words.
b) The introduction should:

(1) Review the facts of the case

(2) Summarize previous decisions made by lower courtsc) The main body should:

(1) Explain your opinion clearly in the form of an argumentative claim

(2) Cite precedent to support your opiniond) The conclusion should:

(1) Describe the importance of the decision you have made (2) Explain how the decision will influence future laws

CASE BRIEF: UNITED STATES V. FIELDS

Explanation / Answer

1) Abel Fields was convicted due to his false claim of having received a purple heart which is a medal received by soldiers who have been wounded due to an act of bravery, during his Military Service.

the facts of the case were that in ever served in the military know did he ever receive a military award including the Purple heart.

2) he was convicted under the Stolen Valor act of 2006 which made it a crime to make false claims about having received any military award or honour. The act established payment of fines along with simultaneous prison sentences as punishment. This was meant to make people aware of the respect and Honour such military awards deserved. he was found guilty in his first trial and appealed the sentence in the court of appeals.

3) the court of appeals overturn the earlier ruling convicting fields by giving a decision of not guilty. the government was unhappy with the decision of the appeals court and repealed the case in the supreme court.

4) Fields is claiming a not guilty decision from the supreme court on the basis of being protected by the first amendment for the right to lie about this award due to the right to free speech granted under the first amendment. Secondly his lie had not resulted in any harm to another person nor his action of having bought a purple heart and pinned it to his coat. Nor did he receive any undue benefit resulting out of his speech or action even if it was a false claim.

5) the prosecution has argued that the lie was intentional so does not deserve protection, as it was made with intention to gain leverage by impressing others. Telling lies about receipt of military awards and purchasing the award and wearing it damages the integrity of those serving the nation and receiving the award after performance of the highest of Duty and acts of bravery. Misrepresentation can prove to be eidi motivating factor for those who are the true recipients of the award. Also simply buying an award and claiming one has received the owner greatly lowers the perceived value within the award for potential recipient serving to demotivate them.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse C
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.