This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
Background and question before the Court
What each side argues
Petitioner (Jeffrey L. Fisher)
According to Jeffrey L. Fisher (Petitioner), according to Jeffrey L. Fisher (Petitioner), according to Jeffrey L. Fisher (Petitioner), the CFAA prohibits obtaining information from a computer without authorization and also prohibits “exceeding authorized access.”
According to Jeffrey L. Fisher (Petitioner), according to Jeffrey L. Fisher (Petitioner), according to Jeffrey L. Fisher (Petitioner), that construction would criminalize the everyday conduct of most Americans.
According to Mr. Fisher, there are First Amendment concerns and a vagueness problem with the statute’s application.
Defendant (Nathan Van Buren)
Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.
United States (Government)
According to United States, congress intended the amendment to have a real and substantial effect; removing the statute’s reference to purpose cuts against reading the statute to capture that concept.
Mr. Feigin
According to Mr. Feigin, the statute is not ambiguous and clearly supports the petitioner’s reading; the government’s interpretation is textually unsupportable.
According to Mr. Feigin, “Authorization” refers to the owner of the computer data, not to external constraints placed on a user.
According to Mr. Feigin, the Court should not interpret the statute in a way that departs from the plain language used in *Musacchio*.
What happened at oral argument
Chief Justice Roberts asked Mr. Fisher to explain the two ways the CFAA criminalizes improper access, referencing *Musacchio*.
According to Justice Kagan, justice Kagan questioned whether an employee checking Instagram at work constitutes “obtaining or altering information.”
Justice Gorsuch asked about the constitutional implications of the petitioner’s examples.
According to Justice Barrett, justice Barrett focused on how the “exceeds authorized access” prong relates to the “without authorization” prong.
According to Justice Sotomayor, justice Sotomayor questioned whether the petitioner’s reading makes the second part of the statute superfluous.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 828a9930ac7fb1b0b1e1-r1-cbd94e4c35491d0b.pdfopinion
- c706ac86be53fb73ee7c-r1-765aff5c1e323b4d.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 28, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.