Patrick Thompson was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 1014, which makes it a crime to “knowingly make any false statement” to influence the FDIC. Thompson had taken out three loans totaling $219,000, including one for $110,000. When the lending bank failed and the FDIC assumed collection, Thompson told FDIC representatives that he had borrowed $110,000, but did not disclose the remaining debt. The Seventh Circuit upheld his conviction, reasoning that § 1014 covers misleading statements even if not literally false.
The Supreme Court disagreed. Chief Justice Roberts, writing for a unanimous Court, held that § 1014 does not criminalize statements that are misleading but true. The statute prohibits only “false” statements, meaning “not true.” Because Congress has elsewhere expressly prohibited “false or misleading” statements when it wished to do so, the Court reasoned that the omission of “misleading” in § 1014 was deliberate. The Court vacated the Seventh Circuit’s judgment and remanded to determine whether a reasonable jury could conclude that Thompson’s statements were in fact false when viewed in context.
Justice Alito concurred, emphasizing that falsity must be judged in context and that the government must still prove a statement was untrue, not merely misleading. Justice Jackson also concurred, noting that there was little for the Seventh Circuit to resolve on remand because the jury in Thompson’s trial was correctly instructed on falsity and had already found the statements false.
Certiorari to the Seventh Circuit
Opinion by Roberts, joined by a unanimous Court
Concurring opinions by Alito and Jackson
Click here to read the opinion.