In the 1997 case of James Brogan v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that it is not a defense against prosecution under 18 U.S.C §1001 for making false statements to federal officials if one argues they were tricked into lying by those officials' questions. The defendant, James Brogan, had lied to IRS agents during an investigation about accepting unlawful cash payments while working as a union official. He argued that his conviction should be overturned because he was entrapped into lying - essentially claiming "exculpatory no" doctrine which suggests people who deny guilt in response to government questioning cannot be prosecuted for false statements. However, the Supreme Court rejected this argument with a 7-2 majority decision stating there's no exception in law allowing lies on basis of entrapment or "exculpatory no". This ruling affirmed that any deliberate falsehoods told to federal investigators are prosecutable offenses.

In the dissenting opinion for James Brogan v. United States, Justice Ginsburg argued that the majority's interpretation of 18 U.S.C §1001 was overly broad and could potentially criminalize innocent conduct. She contended that a literal reading of this statute would make it illegal to tell even trivial lies to federal officials, which is not what Congress intended when they enacted this law. Instead, she believed that §1001 should only apply in situations where false statements significantly impair the basic functions of government agencies. Furthermore, she criticized the majority’s reliance on an outdated precedent from 1909 (United States v. Gilliland) as it failed to consider subsequent changes in legislative history and societal context since then.