Though the remedy of certiorari has existed for centuries in the United States and the United Kingdom, the French system is fairly modern. The formal certiorari process was not even available in France until the 2008 constitutional reforms, which did not go into effect until 2010. In this Article, the Authors trace the development of the remedy of certiorari in the United States and France in an effort to draw conclusions on how the remedy and its use are similar and different under the two systems.

While this Article points out many fundamental differences that still exist between the two systems, it nevertheless proposes that the 2008 constitutional reforms in France have brought the French certiorari model closer to the United States’ model. As a result of these comparisons, this Article provides valuable insight into the development of the remedy of certiorari in both the United States and France, as well as an examination of the similarities and differences between the two systems.

The Supreme Court recently reviewed the Ninth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Alvarez and held the Stolen Valor Act (SVA) to be facially unconstitutional. There was no intent requirement or harm requirement under the plain language of the statute, and therefore the SVA made words, and words alone, criminal. This Article argues that the Supreme Court properly overturned the SVA because the statute violated fundamental First Amendment values and significantly departed from previous, appropriate legislation regulating truth and falsity. Historically, there have been limited categories of speech that are exempt from First Amendment protection, but false speech is not one of them. The plurality in Alvarez noted the sheer breadth of the SVA to cover all false statements made at any time, in any place, to any person. The SVA was subject to strict scrutiny, and ultimately, the plurality found that the government failed to carry its burden to prove a causal link between a negative public perception of military award and lies about military valor. This Article also discusses three examples of the Supreme Court’s willingness to strike down other laws that serve an admirable purpose but appear to threaten First Amendment rights. In conclusion, this Article proposes both public and private alternatives to the SVA.