The question
Whether 18 U.S.C. § 1014, which prohibits knowingly making any false statement to influence the FDIC, criminalizes statements that are misleading but not false.
Thompson v. United States
What the Court decided
The Court held that 18 U.S.C. § 1014 does not reach statements that are misleading but not false, rejecting the lower courts' broader reading that had let Thompson's conviction stand without deciding whether his statements were actually false. The statute uses only the word "false," meaning "not true," and does not use "misleading," so a misleading statement that is true falls outside its terms. Statutory context and precedent confirm that Congress knew how to reach misleading statements and did not do so here. The judgment was vacated and the case remanded so the courts below could decide the falsity question they had bypassed.
How the justices split
UnanimousThe Court's opinion
Roberts, joined by Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Jackson
Writing for a unanimous Court, argued that Section 1014 criminalizes false statements but not statements that are merely misleading. The statutory text uses only the word false, which means not true, and adding any before false statement does not expand it to cover misleading statements. Many other statutes, including other Title 18 crimes, expressly prohibit both false and misleading statements, and none of the 11 provisions consolidated into Section 1014 in 1948 used the word misleading, showing Congress knew how to reach misleading statements when it intended to. Precedent, including Wells and Williams, supports reading Section 1014 narrowly.
Concurring
Alito, writing alone
Filed a concurring opinion. The syllabus records the concurrence but does not state its reasoning.
Concurring
Jackson, writing alone
Filed a concurring opinion. The syllabus records the concurrence but does not state its reasoning.
How we know · 5 sourced claims
Section 1014 does not criminalize statements that are misleading but not false.
Source: syllabus, Held
The statute uses only the word false and does not use the word misleading, and a misleading statement can be true while a true statement is not false.
Source: syllabus, Held
None of the 11 predecessor provisions consolidated into Section 1014 in 1948 used the word misleading, while other statutes of the same period used the phrase false or misleading.
Source: syllabus, Held
Roberts delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
Source: syllabus, lineup
Alito and Jackson each filed a concurring opinion.
Source: syllabus, lineup