Trump-Appointed SCOTUS Justices Side with Liberal Justices in Computer Fraud Case

Joe Ravi via Wikimedia Commons

Trump-appointed justices surprised some when they sided with liberal justices over more senior conservative colleagues. Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh, and Neil Gorsuch agreed with left-leaning Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan on a narrow approach on how to apply a 1986 law against computer hacking.

Fox News reports:

The justices overturned the conviction of a police officer\, Nathan Van Buren, who was paid to run a license plate search in violation of the police department’s policy and, according to the federal government, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

But Barrett, writing for the majority, said the officer technically did not access information he wasn’t entitled to. Instead, he simply misused his access to information he was authorized to see. Therefore, the court said, the officer did not violate federal law.

The case is focused on a narrow issue of statutory interpretation rather than the broad constitutional issues that animate much of the hot-button debate around the Supreme Court. Therefore, it is not likely to reveal much about the justices’ potential rulings or approach to other major cases on freedom of religion, guns, abortion and more.

But the vote breakdown – which comes after the court issued five consecutive unanimous opinions in recent weeks – further underscores that the court does not always rule simply on ideological lines as many Democrats calling on President Biden to pack the court allege. Some have speculated the several unanimous opinions in a row could be a message to pro-court-packing liberals that the court does not necessarily rule only on ideological lines.

Barrett and the agreeing justices noted that the government’s broad reading of how a person may not use a computer could have the accidental effect of criminalizing millions of Americans for things they do every day.

  1. For some reason I never thought that Amy was going to see things our way.
    I think her point is to make the leftists see that she’s not going to vote on things from a conservative point of view.
    We’ll see how the abortion hearings go. Don’t hold your breath.

    1. judges should not be political, regardless of who appoints them. Justice is justice whether its demoncrat or republican

  2. We did not hear the arguments so it is hard to understand what the officer did that was unlawful.

    1. Isn’t it easy enough to look up the case, see the facts presented and decisions made at each level, and come to our own conclusions as to whether “conservative” justices voted with “liberal” justices on the facts or political leanings? Not everything is political. Even extreme-lefties on occasion say things that are true.

      1. Yes, a broken clock is correct two times per day. So, I guess we can say a broken liberal can be correct a couple of times if they are human.

  3. He may have broken a rule of his workplace by looking at information is is allowed to view, but that does not necessarily mean that he broke Federal Law. He should be held accountable by his workplace but not the Feds.

  4. These headlines crack me up. I’m a Republican, but the way I see it, the SCOTUS writes their decisions based on laws and precedents. They research each case thoroughly and reference it in their writings. It has nothing to do with siding with a political party.

    1. Pam, Your comment is exactly as I understand the SCOTUS should function.
      I don’t believe DJT, with the appointment of three justices expected them to do what Dem appointments are known to do which is instead of interpreting and ruling on the laws as written, they rule to progress the liberal views and agenda 99.9999% of the time because it’s what the Dem left wing justices do and in doing so, they effectively rewrite law! DJT appointments were made trying to place justices who would be guided by the Constitution, interpret law as written, study precidence, and rule accordingly without regard to whether either party agrees with it. Justices interpret the law, their job is not to write law…..laws are written and changed by Congress not in the SCOTUS. There are BAD LAWS out there that we have to correct/change in Congress and in doing so we can get conservative rulings by SCOTUS because…… is THE LAW! (In my humble opinion)

  5. The justices interpret the law. They are never to be interpreted according to their political leanings. It was a good decision and I am conservative.

  6. It’s a conservative disease to break ranks and side with the liberals.
    Traitors and backstabbers are ubiquitous among conservatives.
    The liberals for all their faults at least know how to stick together.

  7. LISTEN UP…GOD Says….THERE is a SEPARATION Going ON. GOD is SEPARATING the GOOD APPLES from the BAD ONES. GOD Will KEEP the GOOD APPLES and Get RID of the BAD ONES. ALL Will SEE the POWER of GOD…in ALL its GLORY. From SamuraiQueen. 😄😄😄

  8. A rational SCOTUS decision! My word! It’s about time this court recognized that there is a difference between state and federal law, and that the US Constitution restricts federal law but NOT state law. That is the way US federalism was set up and the way it SHOULD operate – contrary to the wishes of a dictatorial Democrat Party. Knowing the socialist members of the court and the way they think, it is probably simply coincidental that they agreed with the decision.

  9. Think this is click bait. Even BO’s judges have to be right SOMETIME so simply agreeing on a technicality doesn’t mean anything Constitutionally!


Your email address will not be published.

By submitting this form, I hereby consent to's Terms of Use and Privacy Policy, which permits and its affiliates to contact me.