## Facts

- James Brogan, a union officer, accepted cash payments from JRD Management Corporation while JRD employees were represented by his union.
- Federal agents visited Brogan’s home and advised he could have counsel; Brogan agreed to answer questions.
- Asked whether he had received any cash or gifts from JRD while a union officer, Brogan answered “no.”
- The agents stated they had records showing the contrary and warned that lying to federal agents was a crime; Brogan did not change his answer.
- Brogan was indicted for accepting unlawful employer payments (29 U.S.C. § 186) and for making a false statement within federal jurisdiction (18 U.S.C. § 1001).
- A jury convicted Brogan on both counts; the Second Circuit affirmed and rejected the “exculpatory no” doctrine.
- The Supreme Court granted review on whether § 1001 contains an “exculpatory no” exception.

## Issues

1. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 1001 contains an exception for a knowingly false statement that is merely a denial of wrongdoing (the “exculpatory no” doctrine).
2. Whether concerns tied to the Fifth Amendment or potential prosecutorial overcharging justify a judicially created limitation on § 1001’s text.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed.
- The Court held there is no “exculpatory no” exception to § 1001 liability.
- A knowingly false “no” to federal investigators, in a matter within federal jurisdiction, falls within § 1001’s prohibition on “any” false statement.
- The Court rejected the argument that § 1001 reaches only statements that “pervert governmental functions.”
- The Court held the Fifth Amendment protects silence but does not confer a right to lie.
- Concurring Justices agreed the text controlled but expressed concern that § 1001’s breadth can invite unfair investigative or charging practices; the majority treated those concerns as matters for Congress.

## Legal Principles

- 18 U.S.C. § 1001 applies to any knowingly and willfully false statement to federal agencies, including a simple false denial of wrongdoing.
- Courts may not create an “exculpatory no” limitation absent support in the statute’s text.
- The Fifth Amendment permits a person to decline to answer potentially incriminating questions, but it does not immunize an affirmative, knowing falsehood.
- Policy concerns about investigative tactics or “piling on” charges do not justify narrowing § 1001 by judicial exception; such adjustments are for legislative action.

## Conclusion

The Court held that a suspect questioned by federal agents must either remain silent or answer truthfully; a knowingly false denial is punishable under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, and the “exculpatory no” doctrine is not a valid exception.


Brogan v. United States, 522 U.S. 398 (1998)