Sleeper or dud? False or misleading? More questions than answers in SCOTUS argument over federal false statement law

The Supreme Court heard oral argument today in Thompson v. US, which has the potential to be a major white-collar criminal case because it could narow (or expand) how federal criminal law defines a “false statement.”  But this review of this oral argument at SCOTUSblog by Amy Howe suggest what and how the Court might rule is quite uncertain.  I recommend the full review, and here is how it starts:

The Supreme Court on Tuesday grappled with the case of Patrick Daley Thompson, a former Chicago alderman and member of Chicago’s most storied political dynasty. Thompson served four months in a federal prison for making false statements to bank regulators about loans he took out and did not repay. He contends that the federal law under which he was convicted does not apply to statements — like his — that are misleading but not false. But after just over 75 minutes of oral arguments, it wasn’t clear whether the justices would actually decide that legal question, or whether a majority of the justices believed that a ruling on that question would even help Thompson.