Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-783_k53l.pdf
Page Number: 32.0

8 

VAN BUREN v. UNITED STATES 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

3 
The majority’s interpretation—that criminality turns on
whether  there  is  a  single  exception  to  a  prohibition—also 
leads to awkward results.  Under its reading, an employee
at a credit-card company who is forbidden to obtain the pur-
chasing history of clients violates the Act when he obtains 
that data about his ex-wife—unless his employer tells him
he can obtain and transfer purchase history data when an
account  has  been  flagged  for  possible  fraudulent  activity.
The same is true of the person who, minutes before resign-
ing, deletes every file on a computer.  See Royal Truck & 
Trailer Sales & Serv., Inc. v. Kraft, 974 F. 3d 756, 758 (CA6 
2020).  So  long  as  an  employee  could  obtain or  alter  each
file in some hypothetical circumstance, he is immune.  But 
the person who plays a round of solitaire is a criminal under 
the majority’s reading if his employer, concerned about dis-
tractions,  categorically  prohibits  accessing  the  “games”
folder in Windows.  It is an odd interpretation to “stak[e] so 
much”  on  the  presence  or  absence  of  a  single  exception. 
Ante, at 20. 

The majority’s interpretation is especially odd when ap-
plied to other clauses in the statute.  Section 1030(a)(1) pro-
hibits  “exceeding  authorized  access”  to  obtain  “restricted 
data . . . with reason to believe that such information so ob-
tained could be used to the injury of the United States, or
to  the  advantage  of  any  foreign  nation,”  and  retaining  or 
distributing that data.  The term “restricted data” is defined 
to include “all data concerning (1) design, manufacture, or 
utilization of atomic weapons.”  42 U. S. C. §2014(y).  Under 
the  majority’s  reading,  so  long  as  a  scientist  may  obtain 
blueprints for atomic weapons in at least one circumstance, 
he  would  be  immune  if  he  obtained  that  data  for  the  im-
proper purpose of helping an unfriendly nation build a nu-
clear  arsenal.  It  is  difficult  to  see  what  force  this  provi-
sion—in  place  in  substantially  similar  form  since  1984—
has under the majority’s reading.