Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-783_k53l.pdf
Page Number: 9

Cite as:  593 U. S. ____ (2021) 

5 

Opinion of the Court 

granted certiorari to resolve the split in authority regarding
the scope of liability under the CFAA’s “exceeds authorized
access” clause.  590 U. S. ___ (2020). 

II 
A 
1 
Both Van Buren and the Government raise a host of pol-
icy  arguments  to  support  their  respective  interpretations.
But we start where we always do: with the text of the stat-
ute.  Here, the most relevant text is the phrase “exceeds au-
thorized access,” which means “to access a computer with
authorization  and  to  use  such  access  to  obtain  . . .  infor-
mation in the computer that the accesser is not entitled so
to obtain.”  §1030(e)(6).

The parties agree that Van Buren “access[ed] a computer
with authorization” when he used his patrol-car computer
and valid credentials to log into the law enforcement data-
base.  They also agree that Van Buren “obtain[ed] . . . infor-
mation in the computer” when he acquired the license-plate 
record for Albo.  The dispute is whether Van Buren was “en-
titled so to obtain” the record. 

“Entitle”  means  “to  give  . . .  a  title,  right,  or  claim  to
something.”  Random House Dictionary of the English Lan-
guage 649 (2d ed. 1987).  See also Black’s Law Dictionary
477 (5th ed. 1979) (“to give a right or legal title to”).  The 
parties agree that Van Buren had been given the right to 
acquire license-plate information—that is, he was “entitled 
to obtain” it—from the law enforcement computer database. 
But was Van Buren “entitled so to obtain” the license-plate
information, as the statute requires? 

Van Buren says yes.  He notes that “so,” as used in this 
statute, serves as a term of reference that recalls “the same 
manner  as  has  been  stated”  or  “the  way  or  manner  de-
scribed.”  Black’s Law Dictionary, at 1246; 15 Oxford Eng-