The question was if you accessed the data which you are authorized to access (like police database for a policeman) but then used it for the purposes which are not part of your duties (like a corrupt policeman selling these data to criminals) can you be charged under CFAA. The SCOTUS said no, if you are authorized, then you are authorized, and the fact that you used the data later for an unauthorized purpose does not make the access itself a crime under CFAA (still could be a crime under a different law, of course). Thus, they restricted the reading of CFAA to a much narrower scope than the government wanted to apply.
