During today's hearing, Trump attorney Steve Sadow referenced a 2012 Supreme Court case, US v. Alvarez, to support his argument for dismissing charges against the former president. In this case, the Supreme Court struck down a law that criminalized falsely claiming military medals were earned, citing violations of free speech protections.
Former Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, emphasized that the First Amendment safeguards speech, even speech that may be detested. Justice Stephen Breyer, in a concurrence, suggested that the government could pursue less restrictive means to achieve its objectives.
However, conservative Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Antonin Scalia dissented, contending that the law did not overstep its bounds. Alito, speaking for the dissenting justices, argued that free speech does not shield false statements causing real harm and lacking a legitimate purpose.
Sadow drew on both Alito's and Breyer's opinions during the hearing. He highlighted the state's stance that false statements lose First Amendment protection, contrasting it with the views expressed in the Alvarez case. Sadow argued that such speech, even if false, should be afforded more protection rather than less.
