Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-783_k53l.pdf
Page Number: 4

4 

VAN BUREN v. UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

(d) The Government’s interpretation of the “exceeds authorized ac-
cess” clause would attach criminal penalties to a breathtaking amount 
of commonplace computer activity.  For instance, employers commonly 
state that computers and electronic devices can be used only for busi-
ness purposes.  On the Government’s reading, an employee who sends
a personal e-mail or reads the news using a work computer has vio-
lated  the  CFAA.    The  Government  speculates  that  other  provisions
might limit its prosecutorial power, but its charging practice and policy 
indicate otherwise.  The Government’s approach would also inject ar-
bitrariness into the assessment of criminal liability, because whether 
conduct like Van Buren’s violated the CFAA would depend on how an
employer phrased the policy violated (as a “use” restriction or an “ac-
cess” restriction).  Pp. 17–20. 

940 F. 3d 1192, reversed and remanded. 

BARRETT, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BREYER, SO-
TOMAYOR,  KAGAN,  GORSUCH,  and  KAVANAUGH,  JJ.,  joined.  THOMAS,  J., 
filed a dissenting opinion, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and ALITO, J., joined.