Prosecutors’ appeal of a Maryland federal judge’s ruling that a law criminalizing lying about military honors is unconstitutional is on hold while the Supreme Court takes up the issue. U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas DiGirolamo dismissed a case against former Silver Spring resident Aaron Lawless in September, holding the Stolen Valor Act — the statute Lawless was charged with violating — is unconstitutional.
Federal prosecutors in Greenbelt are appealing that decision.
But Lawless’ attorneys argued in a recent motion that no decision should be made on the appeal until the U.S. Supreme Court weighs in on the act’s constitutionality.
The nation’s high court agreed last month to hear a California valor act case.
U.S. District Judge Peter Messitte granted the request to delay proceedings in the Lawless case, which prosecutors did not oppose.
Federal courts have split on whether the law violates the First Amendment. The act, which became law in 2006, makes it illegal for someone to falsely claim to hold military honors or decorations.
In the case the Supreme Court has agreed to hear, the California-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled it unconstitutional. A Colorado judge has also struck down the law, but a Virginia judge has upheld it.
Lawless, who served with the Army in Iraq, falsely told the gun manufacturer Glock that he had suffered combat injuries, earning a Silver Star, four Purple Hearts and two Bronze Stars, according to court documents. Glock then named him its hero of the year in 2008, awarding him a trip to a Las Vegas gun show and engraved pistols.
In dismissing the charges against Lawless, DiGirolamo wrote that the act too broadly regulated speech.
“In its present form, the Act punishes all false statements about the receipt of military honors, including the malicious, the reckless, the mistaken and the innocent,” he wrote.
Appealing that holding, prosecutors wrote that the government has a “strong interest in protecting the meaning and reputation of military honors and awards” and that “prohibition of false statements about receipt of military awards does not present a significant risk of chilling protected speech.”
