Professor Joel Johnson Files Amicus Brief in Supreme Court Case Thompson v. United States

Professor Joel S. Johnson has submitted an amicus brief in support of the petitioner in Thompson v. United States, a pending Supreme Court case concerning the scope of a federal crime that prohibits making "false statements" in certain lending contexts. In the brief, Professor Johnson argues that the Court should adopt a rule of major-questions lenity applicable to high-stakes interpretive questions arising from penal statutes. The brief draws on Professor Johnson's draft article, Major-Questions Lenity (SSRN).

Summary of Argument

Amicus agrees with petitioner that the court of appeals adopted an overly expansive construction of 18 U.S.C. 1014. Amicus submits this brief to urge the Court to explicate a generic rule of major-questions lenity that frames its reading of penal statutes when significant interpretive questions arise. When triggered, a rule of major-questions lenity would require the government to show clear congressional authorization for its asserted prosecutorial power. In this case, major-questions lenity provides a straightforward rationale for narrowly construing Section 1014 to exclude merely misleading statements.

The complete amicus brief may be found at Thompson v. United States