October Term 2020 · Docket 19-783
Does using valid credentials to access restricted data violate the CFAA?
The dispute centers on whether an employee who uses valid credentials to access data they are barred from viewing commits a federal crime.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official Court opinion was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
the side that brought the case's counsel emphasized the plain text of the statute.
The government's counsel argued against atextual interpretations to avoid hypotheticals.
argument_detail
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 37-29 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 37-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 13-31 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 13-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 13-49 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 13-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 49-15 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 49-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 33-39 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 33-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 37-9 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 37-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 20, lines 19-37 — Transcript, file page 20, lines 19-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 21, lines 41-43 — Transcript, file page 21, lines 41-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 36, lines 17-55 — Transcript, file page 36, lines 17-55
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-31 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 33-7 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 33-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 64, lines 43-41 — Transcript, file page 64, lines 43-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 65, lines 43-51 — Transcript, file page 65, lines 43-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 65, lines 53-47 — Transcript, file page 65, lines 53-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 68, lines 49-51 — Transcript, file page 68, lines 49-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 37-49 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 37-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 41-7 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 41-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 43-9 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 43-9
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The case tests the scope of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. the side that brought the case argues the law targets only unauthorized entry. The government argues it also covers misuse of valid access.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 36, lines 17-55 — Transcript, file page 36, lines 17-55
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-31 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 64, lines 43-41 — Transcript, file page 64, lines 43-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 65, lines 53-47 — Transcript, file page 65, lines 53-47
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 30, 2020.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 68, lines 49-51 — Transcript, file page 68, lines 49-51
What each side wants
the side that brought the case wants the conviction overturned because the law targets only unauthorized entry.
The government wants the conviction upheld because the law covers misuse of valid access.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 36, lines 17-55 — Transcript, file page 36, lines 17-55
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-31 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 64, lines 43-41 — Transcript, file page 64, lines 43-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 65, lines 53-47 — Transcript, file page 65, lines 53-47
What each side says
the side that brought the case argues the statute prohibits only accessing computers without permission.
The government argues the statute prohibits using valid access for unauthorized purposes.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 36, lines 17-55 — Transcript, file page 36, lines 17-55
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-31 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 64, lines 43-41 — Transcript, file page 64, lines 43-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 65, lines 53-47 — Transcript, file page 65, lines 53-47
What the justices asked
Justice Breyer asked how the current language differs from earlier statutes.
Justice Thomas asked if accessing higher-level data exceeds authorization limits.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 37-29 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 37-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 13-31 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 13-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 13-49 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 13-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 49-15 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 49-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 33-39 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 33-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 37-9 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 37-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 20, lines 19-37 — Transcript, file page 20, lines 19-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 21, lines 41-43 — Transcript, file page 21, lines 41-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 33-7 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 33-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 65, lines 43-51 — Transcript, file page 65, lines 43-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 68, lines 49-51 — Transcript, file page 68, lines 49-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 37-49 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 37-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 41-7 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 41-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 43-9 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 43-9
Why it matters
The outcome defines the criminal reach of federal computer fraud laws. It determines whether routine workplace data misuse becomes a federal crime.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 36, lines 17-55 — Transcript, file page 36, lines 17-55
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-31 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 64, lines 43-41 — Transcript, file page 64, lines 43-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 65, lines 53-47 — Transcript, file page 65, lines 53-47
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 37-29 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 37-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 13-31 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 13-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 13-49 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 13-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 49-15 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 49-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 33-39 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 33-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 37-9 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 37-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 20, lines 19-37 — Transcript, file page 20, lines 19-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 21, lines 41-43 — Transcript, file page 21, lines 41-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 33-7 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 33-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 65, lines 43-51 — Transcript, file page 65, lines 43-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 68, lines 49-51 — Transcript, file page 68, lines 49-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 37-49 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 37-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 41-7 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 41-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 43-9 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 43-9
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Verified official opinions and orders
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 36, lines 17-55 — Transcript, file page 36, lines 17-55
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-31 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 64, lines 43-41 — Transcript, file page 64, lines 43-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 65, lines 53-47 — Transcript, file page 65, lines 53-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 36, lines 17-55 — Transcript, file page 36, lines 17-55
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-31 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 64, lines 43-41 — Transcript, file page 64, lines 43-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 65, lines 53-47 — Transcript, file page 65, lines 53-47
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Post Opinion ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Post Opinion ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.