All the ruling says is that he didn’t violate the CFAA. It doesn’t say anything about bribery laws, selling government information, etc It is typical for a pro

All the ruling says is that he didn’t violate the CFAA. It doesn’t say anything about bribery laws, selling government information, etc It is typical for a prosecution to include every charge possible. In this case they included the CFAA, and the Supreme Court said that particular charge was an invalid application of that particular law. It has no effect on any other charges, and no effect on any other laws.