In the United States v. Rodgers et al., 1982, the Supreme Court ruled on whether a federal statute that criminalizes false statements made to any department or agency of the U.S. government also applies to false statements made in jurisdictional disputes between two federal agencies. The case involved an FBI agent who lied about his authority to make arrests in order to convince another agency not to arrest a fugitive he was pursuing. The court held that such lies are indeed covered by the statute and therefore constitute a crime under federal law. The decision clarified that Section 1001 of Title 18, which makes it illegal for anyone "in any matter within the jurisdiction" of a U.S. government department or agency "to falsify, conceal or cover up...a material fact," is applicable even when there's no intent to defraud and regardless if it involves inter-agency matters. This ruling underscored how broadly this law can be interpreted and applied - extending its reach beyond just those situations where someone tries intentionally deceiving or cheating the government but also covering instances where one simply provides incorrect information.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Rodgers et al., Justice Stevens argued that the majority's interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 was overly broad and could potentially criminalize innocent conduct. He contended that the statute should only apply to false statements made with an intent to deceive or mislead, not those made in good faith or without knowledge of their falsity. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view that a false statement can be considered material even if it has no influence on a government function; instead, he believed materiality should depend on whether the lie had potential to affect such functions significantly. Lastly, Justice Stevens expressed concern over how this ruling might impact citizens' willingness to communicate openly with government officials due to fear of prosecution for unintentional inaccuracies.