Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-783_k53l.pdf
Page Number: 26

2 

VAN BUREN v. UNITED STATES 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

den?  In my view, the answer is yes.  The necessary precon-
dition that permitted him to obtain that data was absent.  
The Court does not dispute that the phrase “exceeds au-
thorized access” readily encompasses Van Buren’s conduct.
It notes, instead, that the statute includes a definition for 
that phrase and that “we must follow that definition, even 
if  it  varies  from  a  term’s  ordinary  meaning.”  Tanzin  v. 
Tanvir,  592  U. S.  ___,  ___  (2020)  (slip  op.,  at  3)  (internal 
quotation  marks  omitted).    The  problem  for  the  majority
view, however, is that the text, ordinary principles of prop-
erty  law,  and  statutory  history  establish  that  the  defini-
tional provision is quite consistent with the term it defines. 

I 
A 

The Act defines “exceeds authorized access” as “to access 
a computer with authorization and to use such access to ob-
tain or alter information in the computer that the accesser
is not entitled so to obtain or alter.”  §1030(e)(6).  For pur-
poses of this appeal, it is agreed that Van Buren was au-
thorized to log into a government database and that he used
his entry to obtain fake license-plate information from that 
database.  I  thus  agree  with  the  majority  that  this  case 
turns on whether Van Buren was “entitled so to obtain” the 
fake license-plate information.  I also agree that “so” asks
whether Van Buren had a right to obtain that information 
through  the  means  identified  earlier  in  the  definition:  (1) 
accessing a computer with authorization and (2) using that 
access  to  obtain  information  in  the  computer.    In  other 
words, Van Buren’s conduct was legal only if he was enti-
tled to obtain that specific license-plate information by us-
ing his admittedly authorized access to the database.

He was not.  A person is entitled to do something only if
he has a “right” to do it.  Black’s Law Dictionary 477 (5th 
ed. 1979); see also American Heritage Dictionary 437 (def. 
3a) (1981) (to “allow” or to “qualify”).  Van Buren never had