Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-783_k53l.pdf
Page Number: 20.0

16 

VAN BUREN v. UNITED STATES 

Opinion of the Court 

impair the “integrity or availability” of data, nor did it oth-
erwise harm the database system itself. 

C 
Pivoting from text and structure, the Government claims
that precedent and statutory history support its interpreta-
tion.  These arguments are easily dispatched. 

As  for  precedent,  the  Government  asserts  that  this
Court’s  decision  in  Musacchio  v.  United  States,  577  U. S. 
237  (2016),  bolsters  its  reading.    There,  in  addressing  a 
question about the standard of review for instructional er-
ror, the Court described §1030(a)(2) as prohibiting “(1) ob-
taining access without authorization; and (2) obtaining ac-
cess  with  authorization  but  then  using  that  access 
improperly.”  Id.,  at  240.  This  paraphrase  of  the  statute
does not do much for the Government.  As an initial matter, 
Musacchio did not address—much less resolve in the Gov-
ernment’s favor—the “point now at issue,” and we thus “are 
not bound to follow” any dicta in the case.  Central Va. Com-
munity College v. Katz, 546 U. S. 356, 363 (2006).  But in 
any  event,  Van  Buren’s  interpretation,  no  less  than  the 
Government’s,  involves  “using  [one’s]  access  improperly.” 
It is plainly “improper” for one to use the opportunity his
computer access provides to obtain prohibited information 
from within the computer.

As for statutory history, the Government claims that the
original 1984 Act supports its interpretation of the current 
version.  In a precursor to the “exceeds authorized access”
clause,  the 1984  Act  covered  any  person  who,  “having  ac-
cessed a computer with authorization, uses the opportunity 
such access provides for purposes to which such authoriza-
tion does not extend,” and thus expressly alluded to the pur-
pose of an insider’s computer access.  18 U. S. C. §1030(a)(2) 
(1982 ed. Supp. III).  According to the Government, this con-
firms that the amended CFAA—which makes no mention