The Supreme Court on Tuesday signaled it may send a Chicago political scion’s appeal of his conviction for lying to regulators back to a lower court to flesh out the difference between false and misleading statements.

Patrick Daley Thompson, a member of Chicago’s most famous political dynasty, was convicted in 2022 of lying to regulators about the amount he borrowed from a now-defunct bank. He already completed a 4-month prison sentence.

Thompson insisted to a loan servicer’s customer service line that he borrowed $110,000 — not the more than $269,000, including interest, the servicer said he owed. But the former alderman neglected to mention two other loans, totaling $109,000.

He settled the debt with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) by agreeing to pay the principal of $219,000 but not the interest. He was later charged with violating a federal anti-corruption law that bars making false statements to influence certain government agencies and financial institutions.

Thompson’s appeal turns on whether that law also prohibits making statements that are “misleading but not false.” It’s the high court’s latest case weighing how federal authorities prosecute local politicians.

Chris Gair, Thompson’s attorney, argued Tuesday that a falsity is an untruth about an objective fact while a misleading statement depends on what a reasonable person hears.

“Many, many false statements are misleading, and many misleading statements are false,” Gair said. “But that does........

© The Hill