Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-783_k53l.pdf
Page Number: 2.0

2 

VAN BUREN v. UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

dispute  whether  Van  Buren  was  “entitled  so  to  obtain”  that  infor-
mation.  Van Buren contends that the word “so” serves as a term of 
reference and that the disputed phrase thus asks whether one has the
right, in “the same manner as has been stated,” to obtain the relevant
information.  Black’s Law Dictionary 1246.  He also notes that the only
manner of obtaining information already stated in the definitional pro-
vision is by a computer one is authorized to access.  Thus, he continues, 
the phrase “is not entitled so to obtain” plainly refers to information 
one is not allowed to obtain by using a computer that he is authorized 
to  access.  The  Government  argues  that  “so”  sweeps  more  broadly,
reading the phrase “is not entitled so to obtain” to refer to information 
one  was  not  allowed  to  obtain  in  the  particular  manner  or  circum-
stances in which he obtained it.  And the manner or circumstances in 
which one has a right to obtain information, the Government says, are
defined  by  any  “specifically  and  explicitly”  communicated  limits  on 
one’s  right  to  access  information.    Van  Buren’s  account  of  “so”  best 
aligns with the term’s plain meaning as a term of reference, as further 
reflected by other federal statutes that use “so” the same way.  Pp. 5– 
8. 

(2) The Government contends that Van Buren’s reading renders the 
word “so” superfluous.  “So” makes a valuable contribution, the Gov-
ernment  insists,  only  if  it  incorporates  all  of  the  circumstances  that 
might qualify a person’s right to obtain information.  The Court disa-
grees because without “so,” the statute could be read to incorporate all 
kinds of limitations on one’s entitlement to information.  Pp. 8–9.

(3) The dissent accepts Van Buren’s definition of “so,” but would ar-
rive at the Government’s result by way of the word “entitled.”  Accord-
ing  to  the  dissent,  the  term  “entitled”  demands  a  “circumstance  de-
pendent”  analysis  of  whether  access  was  proper.  But  the  word 
“entitled” is modified by the phrase “so to obtain.”  That phrase in turn
directs the reader to consider a specific limitation on the accesser’s en-
titlement:  his  entitlement  to  obtain  the  information  “in  the  manner 
previously stated.”  And as already explained, the manner previously
stated is using a computer one is authorized to access.  To arrive at its 
interpretation, the dissent must write the word “so” out of the statute. 
Pp. 9–10.

(4) The  Government  contends  that  in  “common  parlance,”  the 
phrase “exceeds authorized access” would be understood to mean that
Van Buren “exceed[ed] his authorized access” to the law enforcement 
database when he obtained license-plate information for personal pur-
poses.  The relevant question, however, is not whether Van Buren ex-
ceeded his authorized access but whether he exceeded his authorized 
access as the CFAA defines that phrase.  For reasons given elsewhere, 
he did not.  Nor is it contrary to the meaning of the defined term to