Misleading statements
Thompson v. United States
Date: March 21, 2025
Issue: Whether 18 U.S.C. § 1014, which prohibits “knowingly making any false statement,” criminalizes statements that are misleading but not false.
Case Summary: The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Seventh Circuit’s decision that upheld former Chicago alderman Patrick Thompson’s conviction for making false statements to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Between 2011 and 2014, Patrick Thompson took out three loans totaling $219,000 from the Washington Federal Bank for Savings. When the bank failed, the FDIC collected the unpaid loans. During a phone call with the FDIC’s loan servicer, Thompson challenged the invoice balance and claimed he had only borrowed $110,000. Authorities later charged him with two counts of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1014, a law that bans knowingly making false statements to influence the actions of the FDIC on any loan.
In 2022, a jury found Thompson guilty on both counts. He then asked the court to overturn the verdict or grant a new trial, arguing that a conviction for false statements cannot stand if they are true, even if they mislead. Thompson claimed his statement about borrowing $110,000 was accurate because he had, at one point, borrowed that amount — despite later borrowing more. The Northern District of Illinois rejected his request, ruling that the Seventh Circuit does not require a statement to be false to violate Section 1014. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed and upheld his conviction. Like the lower court, it did not decide whether Thompson’s statement was true, finding that his argument went against existing precedent. Thompson appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted certiorari.
The Supreme Court, however, reversed the Seventh Circuit. Writing for the unanimous Court, Chief Justice John Roberts explained that Section 1014 punishes false statements but does not mention the word “misleading.” The Court reasoned that “false” and “misleading” mean different things — a misleading statement can still be true, and a true statement cannot be false. The Court further reasoned the word “any” before “false statements” does not expand the law’s reach. In other words, a law that covers “any false statement” still only applies to statements that are actually false and not merely misleading.
The Court also determined the statute’s context confirms that Section 1014 does not cover all misleading statements. While Section 1014 uses the word “false” instead of “misleading,” the Court noted that many other laws use the word “misleading.” The court emphasized that interpreting the word “false” to include “misleading” would render the inclusion of “misleading” in those statutes excessive. The Court also pointed out that 11 of the 13 provisions grouped under Section 1014 ban “false” statements, and none use the word “misleading.”
Finally, the Court reasoned its precedent supports its reading of Section 1014. In United States v. Wells, for example, the Court held that Section 1014 does not include a materiality requirement because it does not mention the word “materiality,” while many other laws do. The Court explained that the same reasoning applies here: Section 1014 does not say “misleading,” and thus, it does not cover all misleading statements.
In a concurring opinion, Justice Samuel Alito emphasized that Section 1014 only criminalizes “false statements.” Because the statute does not mention “misleading statements,” he assumed lawmakers omitted that term intentionally. In Alito’s view, the Seventh Circuit erred by applying the law to “misleading misrepresentations.” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson also concurred, agreeing with the Court’s view that Section 1014 applies only to false statements.
Bottom Line: The Court remanded for the Seventh Circuit to determine whether a reasonable jury could find that Thompson’s statements were false.
Documents: Opinion
