Thompson v. United States (23-1095)

argument 23-1095

Thompson v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 17m 8 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 1 month ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the central issue being argued in the Thompson v. United States case?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We'll hear argument first this morning in case twenty three

Mr. Gaines 0:03

ten ninety five,

John G. Roberts 0:04

Thompson versus

Mr. Gaines 0:05

United States. Mr Gare. Mr Chief Justice, and may it please the court. Section ten fourteen punishes only false statements, not true but misleading ones. And we know that from the text, the context in the statutory code, and this court's precedence. At the outset, at its most basic, the word false means not true. It is therefore implausible to suggest that the statute that punishes false statements includes some types of true statements. False. Intrud misleading are different concepts. When Congress means to prohibit both, it does so explicitly using both terms, as it has in over one hundred places in the United States Code.

How do the parties define a “false” statement versus a “misleading” statement under §1014?

Mr. Gaines 0:51

The government would put this all down to serial, thoughtless redundancy, but that violates the first principle of statutory interpretation to heed the text. The courts below erroneously held that Section ten fourteen punishes misleading statements in addition to false ones. We are asking the Court to correct that legal error and to remand to the courts below for a determination of whether Mr Thompson's statements were false or only misleading. I welcome the Court's question.

Clarence Thomas 1:25

Uh w how would you define false and how would you define or distingu and distinguish that from misleading?

Mr. Gaines 1:32

Uh a a a false statement is one that is not true when compared to the objective facts. Uh a misleading statement is a statement uh that depends on the reasonable hearer's understanding. Uh the term misleading is by its nature focuses on what the hearer hears. The term false relates to an objective fact about the universe.

Clarence Thomas 1:59

Uh do you think there could be overlap between the two?

Mr. Gaines 2:02

There definitely are is overlap, Your Honor. Uh many, many false statements are misleading and many misleading statements are false. But that does not mean they're synonyms, as this court has recognized uh on a number of occasions, uh including uh in the uh Macquarie case, uh where the court dealt with uh Rule ten B five and held that Uh ten B five's two parts. The first uh pl penalized only express false statements and the second half truths, which it referred to as misleading omissions.

Clarence Thomas 2:38

You often we see false and mis misleading uh paired. Uh and you think of it, be and there's a tendency to think of those two uh uh paired, false and misleading, or false or misleading. Uh why wouldn't we do that here as opposed to just taking a literal view of false?

Why does the defense argue that Congress intended “false” to exclude “misleading” statements?

Mr. Gaines 2:59

Um so uh when we see them in these hundred-plus statutes, it's always in the disjunctive, false or misleading, suggesting that those are two different things. Uh and uh they do have different meanings because false is an objective question. Uh uh if I uh if I say uh the sun rises in the west, that is a false statement. It doesn't matter what the perception of the listener is. So I think that there is a good statutory context argument, a very good statutory context argument for suggesting when Congress says false, it means false, not misleading. Otherwise, there would be a hundred statutes from the Commodities Exchange Act to the Securities Exchange Act to number of labeling statutes down to the Peanut Statistics Act and the Act that penalizes false or misleading statements by an officer of the administrative office of the U.S.

Mr. Gaines 4:02

Court to either make false or misleading statements. Congress chose not to do that here.

Samuel A. Alito 4:08

I take it you are not arguing that the statute requires that the statement be literally false when viewed in isolation. No

Mr. Gaines 4:20

I'm sorry, Your Honor.

Samuel A. Alito 4:21

Is that correct? Is that your argument?

Mr. Gaines 4:24

That is not our argument. As this court said in Bronson, and I would point the court to footnote three, the the context that's relevant is the question that's asked, not the other circumstances. But uh obviously uh it would be uh absurd to try and judge a statement in isolation from the question that it answers.

Ketanji Brown Jackson 4:46

So can I just ask you how even oh Sorry. I even if we accept or agree with you that the statute covers only false statements. Based on what you've said you believe a false statement is, I guess I don't understand how that helps your client in this case.