On March 21, 2025, a unanimous Supreme Court held in Thompson v. United States that a federal statute prohibiting "false" statements to banks, 18 USC § 1014, does not apply to statements that are merely misleading. Although Thompson's holding is explicitly limited to the statute at issue in that case, it may have implications for prosecutions and lawsuits under a number of federal false statement-related statutes, including several likely to be relevant to the Trump administration's enforcement agenda.
Facts of Thompson
As alleged by the government, Thompson took out three loans from the same bank between 2011 and 2014. The first loan was for $110,000; the second for $20,000; and the third for $89,000. After the bank failed, the FDIC became responsible for collecting the loans, and its servicer sought to collect the principal on all three loans plus accrued interest, all of which totaled approximately $269,000. During a recorded call with the servicer, Thompson said he had "no idea where the 269 number comes from" and while he had borrowed money, "I think it was $110,000." Thompson also later mentioned borrowing $110,000 in a second call.
Thompson was criminally charged with two counts of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1014. That statute makes it a crime to "knowingly make any false statement or report . . . for the purpose of influencing in any way the action of . . . the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation . . . upon any . . . loan." He went to trial, and a jury convicted him on both counts.
The Seventh Circuit affirmed. It held it did not need to decide Thompson's argument that his statements were "literally true [i.e., he did in fact borrow $110,000]" because circuit precedent had held that Section 1014 "criminalizes misleading representations," and the "implication of Thompson's statements was that he owed [the Bank] no more than $110,000."
The Supreme Court reversed and remanded. Writing for the Court, the Chief Justice emphasized that the statute only uses the word "false," not the word "misleading." According to the Court, "false and misleading are two different things. A misleading statement can be true." While there may be "substantial overlap" between the two terms, they are not the same according to the Court. The Court also noted that, in contrast to Section 1014, other federal statutes penalize "false or misleading" statements, and reading "false" and "misleading" to be the same thing "would make the inclusion of 'misleading' in those statutes superfluous."
Notably, however, the Court nonetheless did not dismiss the indictment or order the entry of a judgment of acquittal. Instead, it believed "at least some context is relevant to determining whether a statement is false under §1014" and remanded the case to address " the question whether a reasonable jury could find that Thompson's statements in this case were false."
Implications
As discussed above, Thompson purported to interpret only the word "false" and to do so only in the context of 18 U.S.C. § 1014. The Court noted that many other federal criminal statutes use the phrases "false or misleading," which captures a broader range of conduct than simply "false statements."
But, although not addressed by the Court, a number of other statutes, like Section 1014, prohibit the making of only "false statements" or the use of "false records." Thus, Thompson may nonetheless have implications for other federal criminal and civil regulatory statutes as well, including several that may feature prominently in the Trump administration's efforts to curb government spending, enforce customs laws and tariffs, and limit immigration.
For example, a provision of the False Claims Act that may be used to sue individuals or entities accused of attempting to avoid tariffs or other duties by making false entries on customs forms, 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(G), prohibits "knowingly mak[ing], us[ing], or caus[ing] to be made or used, a false record or statement material to an obligation to pay or transmit money or property to the Government . . . ." (emphasis added). However, under Thompson, defendants sued under this provision may now be able to argue, that "a false record" requires the plaintiff or the government to show a record that was actually false, not merely misleading, incomplete, or deceptive.
Similarly, the False Claims Act prohibits "knowingly mak[ing], us[ing], or caus[ing] to be made or used, a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim." 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(B). Again, Thompson's "false" means actually "false" standard may provide an avenue for defenses under this statutory provision.
Another federal criminal statute that may feature prominently in DOJ's customs and tariff enforcement efforts, 18 U.S.C. § 542, makes it a crime to introduce goods into the United States by means of false statements. Specifically, the statute prohibits "introduc[ing], or attempt[ing] to enter or introduce, into the commerce of the United States any imported merchandise by means of any fraudulent or false invoice, declaration, affidavit, letter, paper, or by means of any false statement, written or verbal, or by means of any false or fraudulent practice or appliance, or mak[ing] anyfalse statement in any declaration without reasonable cause to believe the truth of such statement, or procure[] the making of any such false statement as to any matter material thereto without reasonable cause to believe the truth of such statement, whether or not the United States shall or may be deprived of any lawful duties." (emphases added)
Again, the limitation of the statute to "false statement[s]" will, likely, in light of Thompson, cabin the types of cases the government can bring under this statute.
Finally, it is worth nothing that a number of immigration-related statutes, including a statute prohibiting false statements in naturalization or other immigration proceedings (18 U.S.C. § 1015); and a statute prohibiting false statements in connection with passport applications (18 U.S.C. § 1542), similarly prohibit only "false," not "false or misleading" statements.
In short, while Thompson's holding appears limited at first glance, there are implications for a number of other federal statutes which prohibit only "false," as opposed to "false or misleading," statements, including several statutes likely figure prominently in the new administration's enforcement agenda.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
