In a vigorous Supreme Court docket argument on Tuesday that included references to cookies, cocktails and poisonous mushrooms, the justices tried to seek out the road between deceptive statements and outright lies within the case of a Chicago politician convicted of creating false statements to financial institution regulators.

The case involved Patrick Daley Thompson, a former Chicago alderman who’s the grandson of 1 former mayor, Richard J. Daley, and the nephew of one other, Richard M. Daley. He conceded that he had misled the regulators however mentioned his statements fell in need of the outright falsehoods he mentioned have been required to make them prison.

The justices peppered the attorneys with colourful questions that attempted to tease out the distinction between false and deceptive statements.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. requested whether or not a motorist pulled over on suspicion of driving whereas impaired mentioned one thing false by stating that he had had one cocktail whereas omitting that he had additionally drunk 4 glasses of wine.

Caroline A. Flynn, a lawyer for the federal authorities, mentioned {that a} jury might discover the assertion to be false as a result of “the officer was asking for a whole account of how a lot the particular person had needed to drink.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson requested a couple of youngster who admitted to consuming three cookies when she had consumed 10.

Ms. Flynn mentioned context mattered.

“If the mother had mentioned, ‘Did you eat all of the cookies,’ or ‘what number of cookies did you eat,’ and the kid says, ‘I ate three cookies’ when she ate 10, that’s a false assertion,” Ms. Flynn mentioned. “However, if the mother says, ‘Did you eat any cookies,’ and the kid says three, that’s not an understatement in response to a particular numerical inquiry.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor requested whether or not it was false to label poisonous mushrooms as “100% pure.” Ms. Flynn didn’t give a direct response.

The case earlier than the courtroom, Thompson v. United States, No. 23-1095, began when Mr. Thompson took out three loans from Washington Federal Financial institution for Financial savings between 2011 and 2014. He used the primary, for $110,000, to finance a legislation agency. He used the following mortgage, for $20,000, to pay a tax invoice. He used the third, for $89,000, to repay a debt to a different financial institution.

He made a single fee on the loans, for $390 in 2012. The financial institution, which didn’t press him for additional funds, went beneath in 2017.

When the Federal Deposit Insurance coverage Company and a mortgage servicer it had employed sought compensation of the loans plus curiosity, amounting to about $270,000, Mr. Thompson instructed them he had borrowed $110,000, which was true in a slim sense however incomplete.

After negotiations, Mr. Thompson in 2018 paid again the principal however not the curiosity. Greater than two years later, federal prosecutors charged him with violating a legislation making it a criminal offense to offer “any false assertion or report” to affect the F.D.I.C.

He was convicted and ordered to repay the curiosity, amounting to about $50,000. He served 4 months in jail.

Chris C. Gair, a lawyer for Mr. Thompson, mentioned his shopper’s statements have been correct in context, an assertion that met with skepticism. Justice Elena Kagan famous that the jury had discovered the statements have been false and {that a} ruling in Mr. Thompson’s favor would require a courtroom to rule that no cheap juror might have come to that conclusion.

Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh mentioned that subject was not earlier than the courtroom, which had agreed to resolve the authorized query of whether or not the federal legislation, as a common matter, coated deceptive statements. Decrease courts, they mentioned, might resolve whether or not Mr. Thompson had been correctly convicted.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. requested for an instance of a deceptive assertion that was not false. Mr. Gair, who was presenting his first Supreme Court docket argument, responded by speaking about himself.

“If I’m going again and alter my web site and say ‘40 years of litigation expertise’ after which in daring caps say ‘Supreme Court docket advocate,’” he mentioned, “that will be, after in the present day, a real assertion. It could be deceptive to anyone who was excited about whether or not to rent me.”

Justice Alito mentioned such a press release was, at most, mildly deceptive. However Justice Kagan was impressed.

“Properly, it’s, although, the humblest reply I’ve ever heard from the Supreme Court docket podium,” she mentioned, to laugher. “So good present on that one.”