In a lively Supreme Court argument Tuesday that included references to cookies, cocktails and poisonous mushrooms, the justices tried to find the line between misleading statements and outright lies in the case of a Chicago politician convicted of making false statements to bank regulators.
The case involves Patrick Daley Thompson, a former Chicago alderman who is the grandson of a former mayor, Richard J. Daley, and the nephew of another, Richard M. Daley. He admitted he misled regulators, but said his statements fell short of the outright lies he said were necessary to make them criminal.
The judges peppered the lawyers with colorful questions that attempted to distinguish between false and misleading statements.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. asked whether a motorist who was stopped on suspicion of driving while impaired said something wrong by saying he had one cocktail while omitting that he also drank four glasses of wine.
Carolyn A. said: Flynn, the federal government attorney, said a jury might find the statement false because “the officer was asking for a full description of how much the person had drunk.”
Judge Ketanji Brown asked Jackson about a child who admitted to eating three cookies when she had consumed 10.
Chris C. Geier, Mr. Thompson's lawyer, said context is important.
“If the mother says, ‘Did you eat all the cookies,’ or ‘How many cookies did you eat,’ and the child says, ‘I ate three cookies,’ when she ate 10 cookies, that is a false statement.” said Gere. “But if the mother says, 'Did you eat any biscuits,' and the child says 'three,' that's not a disparagement in response to a specific numerical inquiry.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked whether it was wrong to describe poisonous mushrooms as “100 percent natural.” Ms. Flynn did not provide a direct response.
The case before the court, Thompson v. United States, No. 1095-23, began when Mr. Thompson obtained three loans from the Washington Federal Savings Bank between 2011 and 2014. The first loan, in the amount of $110,000, was used to finance Hazim Law. Use the next loan, $20,000, to pay your tax bill. The third used $89,000 to pay off a debt to another bank.
He made one payment on the loans of $390 in 2012. The bank, which did not pressure him for further payments, closed in 2017.
When the FDIC and the loan servicer it hired sought repayment of the loans plus interest, which amounted to about $270,000, Mr. Thompson told them that he had borrowed $110,000, which was true in a narrow sense but not complete.
After negotiations, in 2018 Mr Thompson repaid the principal but not the interest. More than two years later, federal prosecutors charged him with violating a law that makes it a crime to give “any false statement or report” to influence the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
He was convicted and ordered to pay interest amounting to approximately $50,000. He spent four months in prison.
Mr Geer said his client's statements were accurate in context, an assertion that was met with skepticism. Justice Elena Kagan noted that the jury found the statements false and that a ruling in favor of Mr. Thompson would require the court to rule that no reasonable juror could have reached that conclusion.
Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh said the issue was not before the court, which agreed to decide the legal question of whether federal law, as a general matter, covers misleading statements. They said lower courts could decide whether Mr Thompson was properly convicted.
Judge Samuel A. asked. Alito Jr. is an example of a misleading statement that was not false. Mr. Geyer, who was making his first arguments before the Supreme Court, responded by speaking for himself.
“If I went back and changed my website and said ‘40 years of litigation experience’ and then said in capital letters ‘Supreme Court lawyer,’ that would, after today, be a true statement,” he said. “That would be misleading to anyone considering whether to hire me or not.”
Justice Alito said such a statement was at most somewhat misleading. But Justice Kagan was impressed.
“Well, though, it's the most humble answer I've ever heard from the Supreme Court bench,” she said to laughter. “Very good offer on this.”
