Stanford University law Prof. Jeffrey Fisher, representing fired officer Nathan Van Buren, argued that federal prosecutors have embraced a sweeping view of the law that defines unauthorized computer use so broadly as to transform everyday activities into federal crimes. “It is no overstatement to say that this construction would brand most Americans criminals on a daily basis,” he told the justices. Justice Department lawyer Eric Feigin dismissed such claims as “an imaginary avalanche of hypothetical prosecutions” that the government could never bring based on seemingly innocent conduct. Feigin said Van Buren’s case was far different because a law-enforcement official abused his credentials to access a database in exchange for a bribe. Justice Samuel Alito said government employees could do “enormous damage” by misusing computer files. Yet Justice Sonia Sotomayor called the law “dangerously vague” and Justice Neil Gorsuch suggested the case was the latest in a string of prosecutions that sought to expand federal criminal jurisdiction too far.