Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot. Click to learn more!

Van Buren v. United States

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Van Buren v. United States
Term: 2020
Important Dates
Argument: November 30, 2020
Decided: June 3, 2021
Outcome
Reversed and remanded
Vote
6-3
Majority
Amy Coney Barrett • Stephen Breyer • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh
Dissenting
Clarence Thomas • Chief Justice John Roberts • Samuel Alito

Van Buren v. United States is a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on November 30, 2020, during the court's October 2020-2021 term.

In a 6-3 opinion, the court reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that an individual "exceeds authorized access" when they access a computer with authorization but then obtain information located in computer files, folders, or databases that are off-limits to them. Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the majority opinion. Justice Clarence Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito.[1]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: Nathan Van Buren was convicted in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia of felony computer fraud in violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). Van Buren, a police sergeant in Cumming, Georgia, had accessed the Georgia Crime Information Center database to obtain information for a local man named Andrew Albo in exchange for money. Van Buren moved for acquittal, arguing he had not exceeded authorized access as meant by Section 1030(a)(2 of the CFAA. The district court rejected the motion. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit affirmed Van Buren's conviction.[2] Click here to review the case's background.
  • The issue: The case concerned the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA).
  • The question presented: "Whether a person who is authorized to access information on a computer for certain purposes violates Section 1030(a)(2) of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act if he accesses the same information for an improper purpose."[3]
  • The outcome: The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.


    • The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. You can review the lower court's opinion here.

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    • June 3, 2021: The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.
    • November 30, 2020: The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument.
    • April 20, 2020: The court agreed to hear the case.
    • December 18, 2019: Nathan Van Buren, the petitioner, filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court.
    • October 10, 2019: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit affirmed Van Buren's conviction under the CFAA.

    Background

    Nathan Van Buren, the petitioner, was a police sergeant in Cumming, Georgia, who accessed the Georgia Crime Information Center database, to obtain the license plate number of a dancer at a local strip club. As a sergeant, Van Buren was authorized to access the database for law enforcement reasons. However, he accessed the database to provide the license plate number to a local man named Andrew Albo in exchange for money.[2]

    Van Buren was charged in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on one count of felony computer fraud, in violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), and one count of honest-services wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 1346.[2]

    At the trial, Van Buren moved for acquittal on the CFAA count. He argued he had not exceeded authorized access as meant by Section 1030(a)(2 of the CFAA. The district court rejected the motion. Van Buren was convicted on both counts. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit affirmed Van Buren's conviction.[2]

    Petition for a writ of certiorari

    In the petition for a writ of certiorari, the petitioner argued:[2]

    “ This case presents a recurring question about the interpretation of these provisions, on which the courts of appeals are openly divided: Does a person obtain information on a computer that he is 'not

    entitled so to obtain' when he has permission to access the information, but does so for an improper purpose? The answer to this question has sweeping implications. Every day, 'millions of ordinary citizens' across the country use computers for work and for personal matters. Accessing information on those computers is virtually always subject to conditions imposed by employers’ policies, websites’ terms of service, and other third-party restrictions. If, as some circuits hold, the CFAA effectively incorporates all of these limitations, then any trivial breach of such a condition—from checking sports scores at work to inflating one’s height on a dating website—is a federal crime.[4]

    		”

    Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

    At issue in this case is 18 U.S. Code § 1030(a)(2). Section 1030 is known as the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). Section 1030(a)(2) makes it a federal crime to "[access] a computer without authorization or [exceed] authorized access, and thereby [obtain] information from any protected computer."[5]

    Section 1030(e)(6) defines "exceeds authorized access" as "to access a computer with authorization and to use such access to obtain or alter information in the computer that the accesser is not entitled so to obtain or alter."[5]

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[3]

    Questions presented:
    “ Whether a person who is authorized to access information on a computer for certain purposes violates Section 1030(a)(2) of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act if he accesses the same information for an improper purpose.[4] ”

    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[6]



    Transcript

    Outcome

    In a 6-3 opinion, the court reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that an individual "exceeds authorized access" when they access a computer with authorization but then obtain information located in computer files, folders, or databases that are off-limits to them. Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the majority opinion. Justice Clarence Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito.[1]

    Opinion

    In the court's majority opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote:[1]

    “ Nathan Van Buren, a former police sergeant, ran a license-plate search in a law enforcement computer database in exchange for money. Van Buren’s conduct plainly flouted his department’s policy, which authorized him to obtain database information only for law enforcement purposes. We must decide whether Van Buren also violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 (CFAA), which makes it illegal “to access a computer with authorization and to use such access to obtain or alter information in the computer that the accesser is not entitled so to obtain or alter.”


    He did not. This provision covers those who obtain information from particular areas in the computer—such as files, folders, or databases—to which their computer access does not extend. It does not cover those who, like Van Buren, have improper motives for obtaining information that is otherwise available to them.

    ... In sum, an individual “exceeds authorized access” when he accesses a computer with authorization but then obtains information located in particular areas of the computer—such as files, folders, or databases—that are off limits to him. The parties agree that Van Buren accessed the law enforcement database system with authorization. The only question is whether Van Buren could use the system to retrieve license-plate information. Both sides agree that he could. Van Buren accordingly did not “excee[d] authorized access” to the database, as the CFAA defines that phrase, even though he obtained information from the database for an improper purpose. We therefore reverse the contrary judgment of the Eleventh Circuit and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.[4]

    		”
    —Justice Amy Coney Barrett

    Dissenting opinion

    Justice Clarence Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito.[1]

    In his dissent, Justice Thomas wrote:[1]

    “ The question here is straightforward: Would an ordinary reader of the English language understand Van Buren to have “exceed[ed] authorized access” to the database when he used it under circumstances that were expressly forbidden? In my view, the answer is yes. The necessary precondition that permitted him to obtain that data was absent.


    The Court does not dispute that the phrase “exceeds authorized 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 property law, and statutory history establish that the definitional provision is quite consistent with the term it defines.

    ... In the end, the Act may or may not cover a wide array of conduct because of changes in technology that have occurred since 1984. But the text makes one thing clear: Using a police database to obtain information in circumstances where that use is expressly forbidden is a crime. I respectfully dissent.[4]

    		”
    —Justice Clarence Thomas

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    October term 2020-2021

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2020-2021

    The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 5, 2020. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.[7]

    The court issued 67 opinions during its 2020-2021 term. Two cases were decided in one consolidated opinion. Ten cases were decided without argument. Click here for more information on the court's opinions.

    The court agreed to hear 62 cases during its 2020-2021 term. Of those, 12 were originally scheduled for the 2019-2020 term but were delayed due to the coronavirus pandemic. Five cases were removed from the argument calendar.


    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 U.S. Supreme Court, Van Buren v. United States, decided June 3, 2021
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 Supreme Court of the United States, Van Buren v. United States - "Petition for a writ of certiorari," accessed April 20, 2020
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Supreme Court of the United States, Van Buren v. United States - "Questions presented," accessed April 20, 2020
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute, "18 U.S. Code § 1030. Fraud and related activity in connection with computers," accessed April 20, 2020 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "Sect1030" defined multiple times with different content
    6. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," accessed December 1, 2020
    7. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "A Brief Overview of the Supreme Court," accessed April 20, 2015
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Van_Buren_v._United_States&oldid=9117299"