That statement makes no sense whatsoever to me. (And I am an attorney.) Venue is a procedural, not a substantive matter.

A quote from the opinion mentioned in another comment:

"To enhance the potential punishment from a misdemeanor to a felony, the Government alleged that Auernheimer’s CFAA violation occurred in furtherance of a violation of New Jersey’s computer crime statute, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:20-31(a)"

I think we're all in violent agreement here.

In order to adjudicate the substantive matter in the case, proper procedure must first be assured, which includes assuring jurisdiction and venue are proper for the case before the Court. My point here is that the question of whether the law applied was never analyzed by the appellate court because it found the venue was faulty.

My understanding is that they were trying to try him according to specific laws passed in NJ that would classify his alleged actions as felonious. INAL but that seems to make a pretty substantial difference.