Supreme Court Limits Prosecutions for Unauthorized Computer Use

June 7, 2021 by Tom Ramstack
Supreme Court Limits Prosecutions for Unauthorized Computer Use
(Wikimedia Commons)

WASHINGTON — A U.S. Supreme Court ruling Thursday makes it harder to impose liability on workers who use their employers’ computers for unauthorized purposes.

The ruling restricts the Justice Department’s authority to prosecute unauthorized computer use under the 1986 Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. It also makes it harder for employers to sue their workers when they abuse their rights to computer access.

“The government’s interpretation of the [law] would attach criminal penalties to a breathtaking amount of commonplace computer activity,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the majority.

The issue arose in the case of Cumming, Georgia police officer Nathan Van Buren, who accepted $6,000 from an acquaintance to check a computer database to determine whether a stripper was an undercover law enforcement agent.


The acquaintance who requested the database search was an FBI informant who was helping in the arrest of Van Buren.

He was found guilty of violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act in a jury trial and sentenced to 18 months in prison. Van Buren’s appeals led him to the Supreme Court.

The ruling comes at a time the government is struggling with strategies to halt damaging cyberattacks, which could originate from insider use of an organization’s computers.

Ironically, the Supreme Court released its decision the same day the Justice Department announced it was elevating its enforcement against hacking of big corporation and government computer networks to the same level as terrorism.

Recent cyberattacks against energy company Colonial Pipeline, meat processor JBS S.A. and government agencies infiltrated by the SolarWinds hackers helped to provoke the Justice Department’s policy revision.

Prosecutors’ primary legal tool against insider hacking of government and private computer networks is the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Historically it has been used by businesses seeking to stop insiders from inappropriately tapping into their trade secrets.

The clause of the law considered by the Supreme Court forbids persons from using their computer access “to obtain or alter information in the computer that the accessor is not entitled to obtain or alter.”


Van Buren’s attorney argued the federal law allows prosecutions or lawsuits for deviations from employee job duties as minor as a secretary opening a work Zoom account for personal use.

Justice Department attorneys said Van Buren’s attorney exaggerated the risk of liability. 

Eric J. Feigin, a Justice Department deputy solicitor general, said the defense’s description of the law’s liability risks was a “wild caricature of our position.”

Nevertheless, the 6-to-3 majority opinion said that if the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act “criminalizes every violation of a computer-use policy … then millions of otherwise law-abiding citizens are criminals.”

The court’s opinion added that a broad interpretation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act would “criminalize everything from embellishing an online-dating profile to using a pseudonym on Facebook.”

The dissent written by Justice Clarence Thomas says the majority reached a conclusion different from the language of the federal law. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act was intended to place limits on employee authorizations, similar to a valet parking a car instead of driving away with it on a joyride, the dissent said.

Thomas wrote, “It is understandable to be uncomfortable with so much conduct being criminalized but that discomfort does not give us authority to alter statutes.”

The ruling also overturned Van Buren’s criminal conviction.

The case drew numerous amicus curiae — or friend of the court — briefs from industry and civic groups.

The nonprofit employee advocacy group National Whistleblower Center said that although the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act was not intended to cause reprisals against employees who report bad conduct, “whistleblowers have nevertheless been subjected to retaliatory lawsuits by bad actors under the CFAA.”


However, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association wrote in a brief that narrowing enforcement authority under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act “would allow any person who has legitimate access to the data carte blanche to access and use (or indeed in many cases destroy) that data for any manifestly blameworthy reason they choose.”

The case is Van Buren v. U.S., case number 19-783, in the U.S. Supreme Court.

A+
a-

In The News

Health

Voting

Supreme Court

June 28, 2022
by Dan McCue
Bar Association to Honor Justice Breyer

CHICAGO — Justice Stephen Breyer, on the verge of retirement after 28 years on the Supreme Court, is being awarded... Read More

CHICAGO — Justice Stephen Breyer, on the verge of retirement after 28 years on the Supreme Court, is being awarded the ABA Medal, the highest honor conferred by the American Bar Association. Breyer, who for many years has served as the anchor of the so-called liberal... Read More

June 28, 2022
by Eden Metzger
In the Wake of Dobbs, Uncertainty Grows for Foster Care System

WASHINGTON — Among the questions now being asked in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs v.... Read More

WASHINGTON — Among the questions now being asked in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, overturning 50 years of abortion rights protections, is what the long-term impact will be on the nation’s adoption and foster care systems.... Read More

June 27, 2022
by Dan McCue
Justices Side With Two Doctors Snared in Opioid ‘Pill Mill’ Case 

WASHINGTON — In a unanimous ruling the Supreme Court said on Monday that prosecutors must prove doctors knowingly misprescribed drugs... Read More

WASHINGTON — In a unanimous ruling the Supreme Court said on Monday that prosecutors must prove doctors knowingly misprescribed drugs to secure convictions against them for the unlawful distribution of controlled medicines, like opioids. The decision came down in a case brought by two doctors, Xiulu... Read More

June 27, 2022
by Dan McCue
Supreme Court Sides With High School Coach Who Prayed at 50-Yard Line

WASHINGTON —  A divided U.S. Supreme Court on Monday sided with a high school football coach who claimed the public... Read More

WASHINGTON —  A divided U.S. Supreme Court on Monday sided with a high school football coach who claimed the public school district that employed him violated his free speech and free exercise rights by barring him from praying on the field after games. The 6-3 ruling... Read More

June 24, 2022
by Dan McCue
Justices Uphold HHS Language on Medicare Reimbursements

WASHINGTON — Though few likely noticed given the court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court also decided a... Read More

WASHINGTON — Though few likely noticed given the court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court also decided a highly technical case Friday regarding how the Department of Health and Human Services calculates a class of Medicare payments. The 5-4 ruling in Becerra v. Empire... Read More

Abortion Ruling a Galvanizing Moment in American Life

WASHINGTON — From the president of the United States to ordinary citizens as far away as Hawaii and Guam, nearly... Read More

WASHINGTON — From the president of the United States to ordinary citizens as far away as Hawaii and Guam, nearly everyone, it seemed by Friday afternoon, was talking about the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn two landmark precedents enshrining abortion as a constitutional right. Speaking... Read More

News From The Well
scroll top