A former Chicago alderman with deep political ties faces renewed legal proceedings after a significant Supreme Court decision.
According to NTD, the Supreme Court unanimously overturned Patrick Daley Thompson's conviction for making false statements to financial regulators, with Chief Justice John Roberts determining that misleading statements are not necessarily criminal under the relevant statute.
Thompson, the grandson of former Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley and nephew of Richard M. Daley, had been convicted of making false statements to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) regarding loans totaling $219,000 from the now-defunct Washington Federal Bank for Savings. The case centered on statements Thompson made about the amount he borrowed and the purpose of the loans.
The legal dispute originated in 2011 when Thompson secured three separate loans: $110,000 for partial ownership in a law firm, $20,000 for taxes, and $89,000 to repay another bank debt. When the bank failed in 2017, the FDIC attempted to collect outstanding loans, presenting Thompson with an invoice for $269,120.58.
Thompson disputed the balance, claiming he only borrowed $110,000. During a call with FDIC contractors, he stated the loan was for home improvement, leading to criminal charges under Section 1014 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code.
The federal jury in Illinois convicted Thompson on two counts, forcing his resignation as alderman in February 2022. The case then went through multiple appeals before reaching the Supreme Court.
Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the unanimous court, made a crucial distinction between false and misleading statements. The Court's analysis focused on the specific language of Section 1014, which criminalizes "false statements" but does not mention "misleading" ones.
Roberts explained the Court's reasoning through a striking example. According to Roberts:
If a doctor tells a patient, 'I've done a hundred of these surgeries,' when 99 of those patients died, the statement—even if true—would be misleading because it might lead people to think those surgeries were successful
The Supreme Court's interpretation sets a new precedent for how similar cases will be handled across different judicial circuits, particularly addressing the split between the Sixth and Seventh Circuits' approaches to Section 1014 cases.
The case now returns to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court's ruling. The appeals court must determine whether Thompson's statements qualify as false under the newly clarified standard.
Thompson's legal team had previously argued that his statement about borrowing $110,000 was "literally true" since he had indeed borrowed that amount, even though he later borrowed additional funds. This argument will likely play a central role in the upcoming proceedings.
The timing for the Seventh Circuit's reconsideration remains uncertain, leaving Thompson's legal status in limbo.
Patrick Daley Thompson's case highlights the Supreme Court's role in clarifying the distinction between false and misleading statements in financial regulations. The unanimous decision overturned his convictions for statements made to the FDIC regarding loans from Washington Federal Bank for Savings. The case now returns to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, where judges must apply the Supreme Court's new interpretation of Section 1014, potentially affecting similar cases nationwide.
