Trump SCOTUS Appointees Rule Against Administration's Interpretation of Computer Fraud Act

Former President Donald Trump's U.S. Supreme Court appointees ruled against his administration's interpretation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act on Thursday to overturn the conviction of a police sergeant.

The justices ruled that prosecutors for police Sergeant Nathan Van Buren of Cumming, Georgia, overreached in their use of the statute to charge him after he used a work database to conduct a license plate search in return for money as part of an FBI sting operation. Trump's administration had argued for the law to be interpreted broadly, which three of his appointees ruled against.

"Employers commonly state that computers and electronic devices can be used only for business purposes. So on the Government's reading of the statute, an employee who sends a personal e-mail or reads the news using her work computer has violated" the law, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the majority in the 6-3 ruling. Barrett was Trump's most recent Supreme Court appointment.

For more reporting from the Associated Press, see below.

The Supreme Court limited prosecutors' ability to use an anti-hacking law to charge people with computer crimes.

Conservative and liberal justices joined to vote to overturn the conviction. The case is important guidance in narrowing the scope of the law.

Lawyers for Van Buren had warned when the case was argued in late November that if the court ruled against him it could have sweeping consequences. They argued it could make a federal crime out of using a computer for virtually any unauthorized purpose, from "checking sports scores at work to inflating one's height on a dating website."

The court agreed. Trump's three appointees to the court joined the three liberals to rule for Van Buren. Barrett wrote for the majority that the government's interpretation of the law "would attach criminal penalties to a breathtaking amount of commonplace computer activity." She said if the government's interpretation of the law were correct, then "millions of otherwise law-abiding citizens are criminals."

The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act became law in 1986 and was a response by Congress to a growing need to address computer crimes. It imposes criminal liability on anyone who "intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access."

A majority of the justices concluded that the law "does not cover those who...have improper motives for obtaining information that is otherwise available to them."

In a dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas said that an "ordinary reader of the English language" would have concluded that the police sergeant in the case exceeded his "authorized access." And he called the majority's interpretation of the law "contrary to the plain meaning of the text." He was joined by fellow conservatives Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito.

As part of Van Buren's job, he had access to a law enforcement database of license plate and vehicle registration information. After he ran a license plate search, prosecutors charged him with fraud and with violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

Van Buren was convicted on both counts and sentenced to 18 months in prison. He argued that the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act didn't apply because he accessed a database that he was authorized to access.

Van Buren's lawyer, Jeffrey Fisher, wrote in an email: "We're very pleased with the Court's opinion and are glad that the CFAA is now restricted to its proper reach."

A spokeswoman for the Department of Justice did not immediately respond to an email requesting comment.

The case is Van Buren v. United States, 19-783.