In a lively Supreme Court argument on Tuesday that included references to cookies, cocktails and toxic mushrooms, the justices tried to find the line between misleading statements and outright lies in the case of a Chicago politician convicted of making false statements to bank regulators.

The case concerned Patrick Daley Thompson, a former Chicago alderman who is the grandson of one former mayor, Richard J. Daley, and the nephew of another, Richard M. Daley. He conceded that he had misled the regulators but said his statements fell short of the outright falsehoods he said were required to make them criminal.

The justices peppered the lawyers with colorful questions that tried to tease out the difference between false and misleading statements.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. asked whether a motorist pulled over on suspicion of driving while impaired said something false by stating that he had had one cocktail while omitting that he had also drunk four glasses of wine.

Caroline A. Flynn, a lawyer for the federal government, said that a jury could find the statement to be false because “the officer was asking for a complete account of how much the person had had to drink.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asked about a child who admitted to eating three cookies when she had consumed 10.

Ms. Flynn said context mattered.

“If the mom had said, ‘Did you eat all the cookies,’ or ‘how many cookies did you eat,’ and the child says, ‘I ate three cookies’ when she ate 10, that’s a false statement,” Ms. Flynn said. “But, if the mom says, ‘Did you eat any cookies,’ and the child says three, that’s not an understatement in response to a specific numerical inquiry.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked whether it was false to label toxic mushrooms as “a hundred percent natural.” Ms. Flynn did not give a direct response.

The case before the court, Thompson v. United States, No. 23-1095, started when Mr. Thompson took out three loans from Washington Federal Bank for Savings between 2011 and 2014. He used the first, for $110,000, to finance a law firm. He used the next loan, for $20,000, to pay a tax bill. He used the third, for $89,000, to repay a debt to another bank.

He made a single payment on the loans, for $390 in 2012. The bank, which did not press him for further payments, went under in 2017.

When the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and a loan servicer it had hired sought repayment of the loans plus interest, amounting to about $270,000, Mr. Thompson told them he had borrowed $110,000, which was true in a narrow sense but incomplete.

After negotiations, Mr. Thompson in 2018 paid back the principal but not the interest. More than two years later, federal prosecutors charged him with violating a law making it a crime to give “any false statement or report” to influence the F.D.I.C.

He was convicted and ordered to repay the interest, amounting to about $50,000. He served four months in prison.

Chris C. Gair, a lawyer for Mr. Thompson, said his client’s statements were accurate in context, an assertion that met with skepticism. Justice Elena Kagan noted that the jury had found the statements were false and that a ruling in Mr. Thompson’s favor would require a court to rule that no reasonable juror could have come to that conclusion.

Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh said that issue was not before the court, which had agreed to decide the legal question of whether the federal law, as a general matter, covered misleading statements. Lower courts, they said, could decide whether Mr. Thompson had been properly convicted.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. asked for an example of a misleading statement that was not false. Mr. Gair, who was presenting his first Supreme Court argument, responded by talking about himself.

“If I go back and change my website and say ‘40 years of litigation experience’ and then in bold caps say ‘Supreme Court advocate,’” he said, “that would be, after today, a true statement. It would be misleading to anybody who was thinking about whether to hire me.”

Justice Alito said such a statement was, at most, mildly misleading. But Justice Kagan was impressed.

“Well, it is, though, the humblest answer I’ve ever heard from the Supreme Court podium,” she said, to laughter. “So good show on that one.”

Starbucks will require people visiting its coffee shops to buy something in order to stay or to use its bathrooms, the company announced in a letter sent to store managers on Monday.

The new policy, outlined in a Code of Conduct, will be enacted later this month and applies to the company’s cafes, patios and bathrooms.

“Implementing a Coffeehouse Code of Conduct is something most retailers already have and is a practical step that helps us prioritize our paying customers who want to sit and enjoy our cafes or need to use the restroom during their visit,” Jaci Anderson, a Starbucks spokeswoman, said in an emailed statement.

Ms. Anderson said that by outlining expectations for customers the company “can create a better environment for everyone.”

The Code of Conduct will be displayed in every store and prohibit behaviors including discrimination, harassment, smoking and panhandling.

People who violate the rules will be asked to leave the store, and employees may call law enforcement, the policy says.

Before implementation of the new policy begins on Jan. 27, store managers will be given 40 hours to prepare stores and workers, according to the company. There will also be training sessions for staff.

This training time will be used to prepare for other new practices, too, including asking customers if they want their drink to stay or to go and offering unlimited free refills of hot or iced coffee to customers who order a drink to stay.

The changes are part of an attempt by the company to prioritize customers and make the stores more inviting, Sara Trilling, the president of Starbucks North America, said in a letter to store managers.

“We know from customers that access to comfortable seating and a clean, safe environment is critical to the Starbucks experience they love,” she wrote. “We’ve also heard from you, our partners, that there is a need to reset expectations for how our spaces should be used, and who uses them.”

The changes come as the company responds to declining sales, falling stock prices and grumbling from activist investors. In August, the company appointed a new chief executive, Brian Niccol.

Mr. Niccol outlined changes the company needed to make in a video in October. “We will simplify our overly complex menu, fix our pricing architecture and ensure that every customer feels Starbucks is worth it every single time they visit,” he said.

The new purchase requirement reverses a policy Starbucks instituted in 2018 that said people could use its cafes and bathrooms even if they had not bought something.

The earlier policy was introduced a month after two Black men were arrested in a Philadelphia Starbucks while waiting to meet another man for a business meeting.

Officials said that the men had asked to use the bathroom, but that an employee had refused the request because they had not purchased anything. An employee then called the police, and part of the ensuing encounter was recorded on video and viewed by millions of people online, prompting boycotts and protests.

In 2022, Howard Schultz, the Starbucks chief executive at the time, said that the company was reconsidering the open-bathroom policy.