US v Alvarez argued before the Supreme Court

The constitutionality of the Stolen Valor Act was argued before the Supreme Court yesterday. Kiran Bhat at ScotusBlog has a thorough roundup of the media coverage, so no sense trying to compete:  

The Court heard arguments in two cases yesterday morning, with United States v. Alvarez garnering most of the media’s attention. The case involves a First Amendment challenge to the Stolen Valor Act, which criminalizes lies about having received military decorations. Writing for this blog, Lyle Denniston reports that the government urged the Court to interpret the law narrowly; other coverage comes from Nina Totenberg of NPR, Adam Liptak of the New York Times (who also discussed the oral argument for the paper’s At War blog), David G. Savage of the Los Angeles Times, James Vicini of Reuters, Michael Doyle of McClatchy Newspapers,  Mark Sherman of the Associated Press, Mike Sacks of the Huffington Post, and Warren Richey of the Christian Science Monitor.

Commentary on the argument came from the editorial boards of the Washington Post and New York Times, both of which urged the Court to find the Act unconstitutional. At the Constitutional Law Prof Blog, Ruthann Robson analyzed the argument, concluding that Justice Alito seemed to believe that “Congress has broad authority to criminalize falsehoods” but that the other Justices did not give away their opinions during arguments; at ACSblog, she argued that “federal laws should criminalize fraudsters, not braggarts.”  At the Volokh Conspiracy, Eugene Volokh observed that the Justices appeared interested in the issue of when “knowing lies [should] be restrictable on the ground that they cause emotional distress,” while Douglas A. Berman puts a “sentencing spin” on the arguments at Sentencing Law and Policy.

As with similar cases, the justices seemed concerned that the law may invite additional legislation criminalizing - meaning sending people to jail for telling - other types of lies. Having a high school diploma? Having had an extra-marital affair? Is there a clear line stating how far is too far?