Episode 114
Opinion Summary: Thompson v. United States | Date Decided: 3/21/25 | Case No. 23-1095
The question presented in this case is: Whether 18 U.S.C. § 1014, which prohibits making a "false statement" for the purpose of influencing certain financial institutions and federal agencies, also prohibits making a statement that is misleading but not false.
The Supreme Court held: 18 U.S.C. § 1014, which prohibits “knowingly mak[ing] any false statement,” does not criminalize statements that are misleading but not false.
Transcript
Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion for a unanimous court.
Speaker A:Justices Alito and Jackson each filed concurring opinions.
Speaker A:Please note that this summary is read by an automated voice Chief Justice Roberts's.
Speaker B:Majority opinion Patrick Thompson took out three loans totaling $219,000 from one bank.
Speaker B:After the bank failed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, FDIC became responsible for collecting the outstanding loans.
Speaker B:During a call with the FDIC's loan servicer, Thompson disputed the $269,120.58 balance shown on his invoice, which consisted of the $219,000 Thompson had borrowed plus interest, stating that he had no idea where the 269 number comes from and that he borrowed $110,000.
Speaker B:Thompson made similar statements in a later call with FDIC contractors.
Speaker B:Thompson was later charged with violating 18 USC Section 1 14, which prohibits knowingly making any false statement to influence the FDIC's action on any loan.
Speaker B:A jury found Thompson guilty and he moved for acquittal, arguing that his statements were not false because he had in fact borrowed $110,000 even though he later borrowed more.
Speaker B: ent because they read section: Speaker B: Held section: Speaker B:Pages 4 to 10A.
Speaker B:The statutory text criminalizes false statements but does not use the word misleading.
Speaker B:False and misleading are two different things.
Speaker B:A misleading statement can be true and a true statement is not false.
Speaker B:Given that, it is significant that the statute uses only the word false, which means not true, adding any before false statement does not transform the scope of the statute.
Speaker B:A statute that applies to any false statement does not cover all misleading statements, only the false ones.
Speaker B:While the government argues that false and misleading have long been considered synonyms, the overlap between false statements and misleading ones is beside the point.
Speaker B: ion under the text of section: Speaker B:Pages 4 to 6B.
Speaker B: context confirms that section: Speaker B: Interpreting false in section: Speaker B: Further, when Section: Speaker B:Historical context thus confirms that when Congress intended to cover all misleading statements, it knew how to do so.
Speaker B:Custis v.
Speaker B:United States, 511 U.S.
Speaker B:485, 492 pages 6, 7C.
Speaker B: he Court's reading of section: Speaker B:In United States v.
Speaker B:Wells, 519 U.S.
Speaker B: , the Court held that section: Speaker B:Ed.
Speaker B:At 490.
Speaker B: e logic suggests that section: Speaker B:In Williams vs.
Speaker B:United States, 458 U.S.
Speaker B:279, the Court reversed a conviction under section 114 for depositing several bad checks on the basis that the defendant's conduct did not involve the making of a false statement because a check is not a factual assertion at all and therefore cannot be characterized as true or false.
Speaker B:At 284.
Speaker B: at a conviction under section: Speaker B:1.
Speaker B:The defendant made a statement and 2 that statement can be characterized as false and not true.
Speaker B: Section: Speaker B: dently unlawful under section: Speaker B:Pages 7 to 9D.
Speaker B: right question under section: Speaker B:The Court remands for the 7th Circuit to determine whether a reasonable jury could find that Thompson's statements were false.
Speaker B: to: Speaker C:Justice Alito Concurring Opinion I join the opinion of the Court but write separately to summarize my understanding of the decision.
Speaker C:Five aspects of today's decision are most important.
Speaker C: First, Section: Speaker C:Third, statements must be evaluated for falsity within their full context, not in isolation, as demonstrated through examples of statements that may be literally true but false in context, like a child saying I ate three cookies when they ate 12, or literally false but true in context, like an ironic statement about a teenager's helpfulness with chores.
Speaker C: leading statements in section: Speaker C:The current pattern jury instructions appropriately focus only on falsity.
Speaker C:Fifth, the remand question is narrow.
Speaker C:Using the sufficiency of evidence standard, the 7th Circuit must determine whether any rational finder of fact could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Thompson's statements were false in context, as the jury was not instructed about misleading statements and Thompson challenges only the sufficiency of evidence.
Speaker C:With these observations, I join the Court's opinion.
Speaker D: USC Section: Speaker D:I write separately to note that the pre verdict instructions the district court provided to the jury in this case did not say otherwise.
Speaker D:The jury received correct instructions requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Thompson made the charged false statements and was not advised about the Seventh Circuit's erroneous misleading representations standard.
Speaker D:For count two, the jury specifically found Thompson made all alleged statements.
Speaker D:In my view, little remains for the 7th Circuit to do on remand except affirm the district court's judgment upholding the jury's guilty verdict.
Speaker D: s statements satisfied Section: Speaker A:Case Implications Based on the Court's ruling and the concurring opinions, this decision may have real world implications for federal prosecutors, defense attorneys, and regulated entities dealing with the FDIC and other federal agencies.
Speaker A: ding statements under section: Speaker A:This may particularly impact cases involving complex financial transactions or partial disclosures where statements might be technically true but create misleading impressions.
Speaker A:However, Justice Alito's concurrence provides important practical guidance by emphasizing that falsity must be evaluated in context, allowing prosecutors to argue that literally true statements can still be false when their contextual meaning is untrue.
Speaker A: ding statements under section: Speaker A:For financial institutions and their customers, the ruling provides clearer boundaries around criminal liability for communications with federal regulators, though it simultaneously highlights the importance of considering how statements might be interpreted in their full context rather than focusing solely on literal truth.
