In Loughrin v. United States (2013), the Supreme Court ruled that federal prosecutors do not need to prove a defendant intended to defraud a bank in order to secure conviction under the federal bank fraud statute. The case involved Kevin Loughrin, who was charged with six counts of bank fraud after he stole checks from mailboxes, altered them and then used them at Target stores for merchandise and cash back. He argued that his actions did not constitute bank fraud because he intended to deceive Target, not the banks on which the stolen checks were drawn. However, Justice Elena Kagan wrote for a unanimous court stating that while some applications of this law require proof of intent to defraud a financial institution specifically; others do not - such as when someone uses false statements or pretenses against third parties like merchants but ultimately risks deceiving and causing losses for banks.

In the dissenting opinion for Loughrin v. United States, Justice Scalia argued that the majority's interpretation of federal bank fraud statute was overly broad and could potentially criminalize a wide range of conduct not intended by Congress. He contended that to prove bank fraud under 18 U.S.C §1344(2), it must be shown that the defendant intended to defraud a financial institution, rather than simply committing an act which ultimately resulted in such harm. In this case, he believed there was no evidence showing Loughrin had intent to defraud any banks when he forged checks; his target were retail stores from whom he obtained goods through fraudulent means. Therefore, according to Scalia’s view, applying federal bank fraud charges against him stretched beyond what is covered by law.