Van Buren v. United States, 593 U.S. 374 (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and its definition of "exceeds authorized access" in relation to one intentionally accessing a computer system they have authorization to access. In June 2021, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6–3 opinion ...

Jun 3, 2021 · Van Buren was charged with a felony violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 (CFAA), which subjects to criminal liability anyone who “intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access.” 18 U. S. C. §1030 (a) (2).

Nov 30, 2020 · A federal grand jury charged Van Buren with one count of honest-services wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 1346, and one count of felony computer fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030. A jury convicted Van Buren on both counts, and Van Buren appealed his convictions.

Van Buren was charged with a felony violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 (CFAA), which subjects to criminal liability anyone who “intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access.” 18 U. S. C. §1030(a)(2).

Nov 30, 2020 · Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 6-3, in an opinion by Justice Barrett on June 3, 2021. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito joined. Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 17, 2020) Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, Nathan Van Buren.

The United States disputes Van Buren’s argument that interpreting “exceeds authorized access” to include people using authorized access for an unauthorized purpose would criminalize benign conduct and raise First Amendment and vagueness concerns.

Jun 3, 2021 · In Van Buren v. United States, 141 S.Ct. 1648 (2021), the Supreme Court reversed a former police sergeant's conviction for violating the CFAA by accessing a license-plate database to research an individual on behalf of a private party. Summary of this case from Premier Shield Ins. v. Afternic Servs.

Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, Nathan Van Buren. Motion to extend the time to file a response from January 17, 2020 to February 18, 2020, submitted to The Clerk. Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including February 18, 2020.

Van Buren appealed to the Eleventh Circuit, which affirmed his CFAA conviction. The U.S. Supreme Court granted review. Nathan Van Buren was a police officer in Cuming, Georgia, when he became the subject of an FBI sting operation after soliciting money from a wealthy local eccentric, Andrew Albo.

Jul 1, 2021 · On June 3, 2021, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Van Buren v. United States, holding that an individual does not violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) if he is authorized to obtain information on a computer for specific purposes only, and he then accesses that information for other unauthorized purposes.