The case of Van Buren v. United States (2020) revolved around the interpretation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). Nathan Van Buren, a former police sergeant, was convicted under CFAA for accessing a law enforcement database to retrieve information in exchange for money, an act which his job did not authorize him to do. The Supreme Court had to decide whether he “exceed[ed] authorized access” as defined by CFAA or merely misused his existing access rights. In June 2021, the court ruled 6-3 in favor of Van Buren stating that someone cannot be charged with violating CFAA if they have legitimate access to computer information but use it improperly or for inappropriate reasons. This ruling narrowed down the scope of CFAA and clarified its ambiguous language regarding unauthorized data access.

In the dissenting opinion for Van Buren v. United States, Justice Thomas argued that the majority's interpretation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) was too narrow. He contended that an individual "exceeds authorized access" when they use their computer privileges in a way expressly forbidden by their employer or another authority figure, even if they have general access to that information system. In this case, Nathan Van Buren used his police database access rights to look up a license plate number in exchange for money - something clearly outside his job duties as a law enforcement officer. According to Justice Thomas, such misuse of one's computer privileges should be considered illegal under CFAA because it violates specific usage restrictions imposed by those who grant these privileges.