On January 14, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments regarding the case of Patrick Daley Thompson, a former Chicago alderman with deep political roots. Thompson’s legal team argues that the federal law under which he was convicted—making false statements to bank regulators—does not embrace statements that, while misleading, are not factually false. Thompson’s appeal comes after a jury convicted him for statements he made about loans totaling $219,000 from the now-defunct Washington Federal Bank for Savings.
During oral arguments, the focus increasingly centered on the precise meaning of ‘false statements’ as dictated by the federal statute. Thompson’s lawyer, Chris Gair, argued that the legal language punishes statements that are not true, differentiating them from those that are misleading yet factually accurate. Gair requested the Court to allow lower courts to determine whether Thompson’s statements were misleading or indeed false.
Representing the U.S. government, Assistant Solicitor General Caroline Flynn posited that Thompson’s statements were false in context. She highlighted that his claim of borrowing $110,000, while omitting the additional $109,000, changed the factual landscape of his financial obligations, rendering his statement false.
The Justices exhibited varied responses. Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch questioned the necessity of using this case to address the broader definition of what constitutes a “false statement.” They suggested waiting for a better-suited case, given the potential widespread impact a decision could have on federal criminal law. Meanwhile, other justices like Amy Coney Barrett considered simplistic reiterations of jury instructions, stating a false statement is one untrue when made, as potentially adequate.
There was skepticism toward Gair’s proposal to redirect the case to lower courts. Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor appeared dubious about the assertion that no reasonable jury could find Thompson’s omission to be a falsehood when faced with a straightforward financial discrepancy.
Justice Samuel Alito also challenged the relevancy of ‘misleading statements’ in this appeal, suggesting that the appeal’s focus perhaps stemmed from errors by the lower court. Both Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh underscored that the Court’s review was centered on legal interpretations rather than specific factual assessments relevant to Thompson’s convictions.
A Supreme Court verdict in this legal conundrum, which could have implications on federal fraud statutes, is anticipated by summer. For more detailed insights, the original coverage of this case can be found here.