Brogan v. United States 522 U.S. 398 (1998) was a United States Supreme Court Case that ruled that the Fifth Amendment

Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, protects against abuse of government authority in a legal procedure. Its guarantees stem from English common law which traces back to the Magna Carta in 1215...

 does not protect the right of those being questioned by law enforcement officials to deny wrongdoing if doing so would be a false statement.

Decision

The case determined the ultimate status of the “exculpatory no”, a right found by several circuit courts. These courts claimed that Section 1001 of the U.S. Code

United States Code

The Code of Laws of the United States of America is a compilation and codification of the general and permanent federal laws of the United States...

 should be interpreted such that the law does not apply to those who simply deny wrongdoing. Justice Scalia explains that, although others have interpreted the law to only apply to situations in which the lie “pervert[s] government functions”, the language of the statute is clear, and that the court has no power to overrule the wording of the statute as created by Congress, even if the law is being used outside of its intended purpose.

The court also ruled that the Fifth Amendment

Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, protects against abuse of government authority in a legal procedure. Its guarantees stem from English common law which traces back to the Magna Carta in 1215...

 does not apply in this situation, as the Fifth Amendment must be explicitly invoked, and even then only gives the person involved the right to remain silent, not to explicitly lie.

Ginsburg's concurrence

Justice Ginsburg, joined by Justice Souter, argue that, although Section 1001 is written in such a way such that its relevance in this case is incontrovertible, the current wording of Section 1001 leads to unreasonable and unintended circumstances, such as that of defendant Brogan, and should be rewritten. She details the circumstances of this particular case, recalling that investigators arrived unannounced at Brogan's home, already having secured evidence had received illicit cash payments. They asked him if he had received the illicit payments he had received, to which Brogan replied “No”. The investigators then concluded the interview, stating that they knew he was lying and that his lie constituted a crime. In other words, the interview had not served to gather information, but simply to coerce Brogan into committing an additional crime.

Stevens's dissent

Justice Stevens, joined by Justice Breyer, follow the reasoning given by Justice Ginsburg, but argued that this logic gives the court the right and means to restrict the application of Section 1001 to not apply to cases involving an exculpatory no. They show a willingness to go against the literal meaning of the law as enacted by the Legislature it the interest of sustaining the spirit of the law.

See also

• List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 522
• List of United States Supreme Court Cases

External links

• Opinion of the Court (Scalia)
• Ginsburg's Concurrence
• Stevens’s Dissent