The case determined the ultimate status of the “exculpatory no," a right found by several circuit courts, which courts claimed that Section 1001[1] of Title 18 of the United States Code should be interpreted as the law not applying to those who simply deny wrongdoing.

In the majority opinion, Justice Scalia explained that although others have interpreted the law to apply only to situations in which the lie "pervert[s] government functions," the language of the statute is clear, and the court had no power to overrule the wording of the statute, as created by Congress, even if the law was being used beyond its intended purpose.

Justice Ginsburg, joined by Justice Souter, argued that although Section 1001 is written such that its relevance in this case is incontrovertible, the current wording of Section 1001 leads to unreasonable and unintended circumstances like that of Brogan and so it should be rewritten.

She detailed the circumstances of the case, recalling that investigators arrived unannounced at Brogan's home, already having secured evidence that he had received illicit cash payments.

In other words, the interview had not served to gather information but simply to coerce Brogan into committing an additional crime.