Home sweet home ;) Quick, name a case that the Supreme Court will decide this term that may have notable implications for the world of higher education. I'm guessing that most people probably wouldn't have an immediate answer, and that most who would have an answer off the top of their heads would think that I was talking about the case about affirmative action, where the University of Texas at Austin will find out whether they can keep using ethnicity as part of the basis for their admissions decisions. After all, that's been big news this week in the higher education media.

Well, those people would be wrong. I'm actually talking about the Supreme Court's decision to review a case involving the Stolen Valor Act. That's a law passed by Congress in 2005 that makes it a federal crime to claim to have earned a U.S. military award if you haven't actually done so. The case centered on a colorful character by the name of Xavier Alvarez. How colorful? Here's a description of him:

"Xavier Alvarez lied. He lied when he claimed to have played professional hockey for the Detroit Red Wings. He lied when he claimed to be married to a Mexican starlet whose appearance in public caused paparazzi to swoon. He lied when he claimed to be an engineer. He lied when he claimed to have rescued the American ambassador during the Iranian hostage crisis, and when he said that he was shot going back to grab the American flag."

And that's his lawyer's description of him, not the prosecutor's!

So the argument in this particular case is that while saying you've been awarded a Purple Heart may be deceitful and sleazy, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be speech that's protected by the First Amendment:

Critics of the Stolen Valor Act say it requires no underlying injury. Any false statement claiming receipt of a medal may be punished. These critics suggest the best remedy for such false statements is not criminal punishment but more speech, particularly truthful speech to expose the lie.

So okay, but what does that have to do with higher education? A number of states have laws that restrict people's ability to say when they hold an unaccredited degree. The intention of those laws is the same as that for the Stolen Valor Act, to prevent fraud. But in the case of so-called degree use laws, they also often get in the way of people using degrees from unaccredited but legitimate schools. In other words, it does just stop people from lying, it can even stop them from telling the truth! If the Supreme Court returns a decision that reaffirms the First Amendment, it might be another tool in the case law toolbox should someone seek to try to overturn degree use laws.

Ultimately, this wouldn't be so bad. The Stolen Valor Act's critics point out to how easy it's become to publicly report liars who falsely claim an honor they didn't earn. And when it comes to schools, it's really easy to check whether a college or university is accredited. Try it here to see for yourself, I'll wait.

See? Wasn't that easy? When it comes to restrictions on speech, we ought to err on the side of caution. And when the Internet makes it trivially easy to check people's claims — military or scholastic — before making a decision based on their say so, there's no reason for prior restraint. We'll see whether the Supreme Court agrees!