Brogan v. United States
522 U.S. 398 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The federal false statements statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1001, which criminalizes making any knowingly and willfully false statement to a federal agency, does not contain an implicit exception for a simple false denial of criminal wrongdoing, often referred to as an 'exculpatory no.' The plain language of the statute, which covers 'any' false statement, is controlling.
Facts:
- James Brogan was a union officer.
- Between 1987 and 1988, Brogan accepted cash payments from JRD Management Corporation, a real estate company whose employees were represented by the union.
- On October 4, 1993, federal agents from the Department of Labor and the Internal Revenue Service visited Brogan at his home.
- The agents explained they were investigating JRD and asked Brogan if he would answer some questions, to which he agreed.
- One agent asked Brogan whether he had received any cash or gifts from JRD when he was a union officer.
- Brogan responded with a single word: 'no.'
- After his denial, the agents revealed they had company records showing he had received payments and informed him that lying to federal agents was a crime.
- Brogan did not modify his answer.
Procedural Posture:
- James Brogan was indicted in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for accepting unlawful cash payments and for making a false statement in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001.
- Following a trial, a jury found Brogan guilty.
- Brogan appealed his convictions to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, explicitly rejecting the 'exculpatory no' doctrine that had been accepted in other circuits.
- The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the circuit split on the issue of the 'exculpatory no' doctrine.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the federal false statements statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1001, contain an unwritten exception for 'exculpatory no' statements, which are mere false denials of criminal wrongdoing made to federal investigators?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Scalia
The federal false statements statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1001, does not contain an exception for an 'exculpatory no.' By its plain terms, the statute covers 'any' false statement, and the word 'no' is a statement. The Court rejected the argument that only statements that pervert governmental functions are criminalized, finding that any falsehood relating to an investigation perverts that function. The Court also dismissed the Fifth Amendment-based argument that the statute creates a 'cruel trilemma' for guilty suspects, stating that the Fifth Amendment confers a right to remain silent, not a privilege to lie. The plain language of the statute is unambiguous and does not permit the judiciary to create an exception, regardless of how many lower courts have previously adopted one.
Concurring - Justice Ginsburg
While the unqualified language of § 1001 compels the conclusion that there is no 'exculpatory no' exception, this broad reading gives prosecutors extraordinary and potentially unfair authority to 'manufacture crimes.' The statute's history shows it was originally intended to prevent fraud against the government, not to prosecute simple denials of guilt made in informal, non-custodial interviews where individuals are not warned of their rights. The Department of Justice itself has a policy against such prosecutions, indicating their dubious propriety. Congress should consider amending the statute to address this overbreadth and prevent its use as a tool for prosecutorial abuse.
Concurring - Justice Souter
I join the Court's opinion but write separately to express agreement with Justice Ginsburg's concurrence regarding the potential for prosecutorial abuse under § 1001 and the need for congressional attention to the statute's breadth.
Dissenting - Justice Stevens
The Court should recognize a well-settled interpretation of § 1001 that excludes the 'exculpatory no.' The fact that a false denial fits within the literal text of a criminal statute is not a sufficient reason to reject a long-standing judicial interpretation, especially when a literal reading leads to results Congress likely did not intend. The Court has often interpreted criminal statutes more narrowly than their text suggests to avoid absurd outcomes, and it should show greater respect for the virtually uniform understanding of the bench and bar that the 'exculpatory no' was a valid defense.
Analysis:
This decision represents a significant victory for a textualist approach to statutory interpretation, emphasizing the plain meaning of a statute over judicially-created doctrines or perceived legislative intent. By eliminating the 'exculpatory no' defense, which had been adopted by a majority of federal circuits, the Court resolved a circuit split and significantly broadened the scope of potential criminal liability for individuals questioned by federal agents. The ruling enhances prosecutorial leverage, as investigators can more easily secure a conviction for a false statement even if the underlying crime is difficult to prove. The decision places a premium on a suspect's right to remain silent, as lying, even with a simple 'no,' is now clearly established as a separate felony offense.
