Free PACER: Senators take another stab at revamping access to federal court records

WASHINGTON (CN) — Senators reintroduced a bill Tuesday aimed at modernizing federal court records, centralizing access to docket reports across the federal judiciary and making the whole system free to use.

The bipartisan bill’s sponsors argued the measure would streamline access to court information, hike cybersecurity protections and save tens of millions of dollars in operating costs required currently by a “burdensome” federal document repository.

Since the late 1980s, the judiciary has used the Public Access to Court Electronic Records, or PACER, service to collect case information from federal district, appellate and bankruptcy courts across the country. The repository, made available online in 2001, charges users a small fee to access records.

But critics of PACER have long said the system is costly, outdated and difficult to navigate — and that users should not have to pay to view public judicial documents. Federal district, appeals and bankruptcy courts also use their own individual records and electronic filing systems within the PACER portal.

Now, Louisiana Senator John Kennedy and Oregon Senator Ron Wyden have unveiled legislation they say will force the judiciary to completely overhaul PACER and replace it with a modern, centralized public repository for court documents.

The Open Courts Act, introduced Tuesday, would instruct the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts to develop a new system for record-keeping and electronic filing. The new service would be funded by filing fees as well as a standard annual fee collected from government agencies by the U.S. Judicial Conference.

And the PACER replacement, the legislation said, would remove the existing paywall on federal court documents.

“Americans should not have to sell plasma or wrestle with clunky government websites just to read public court records,” Kennedy said in a statement. “PACER is old, very expensive and extremely burdensome to use. The Open Courts Act would drag this outdated system into the 21st century, protect court records from hackers and give taxpayers a better deal.”

Lawmakers and open court advocates have for years pushed for a free replacement to PACER. A similar bill proposed by Georgia Representative Hank Johnson and Ohio Representative Jim Jordan cleared the House Judiciary Committee in 2020 — and the Senate came close to passing its own version in 2022.

But the federal judiciary has reportedly pushed back on efforts to revamp the existing repository of court records. Reform-minded judicial advocacy group Fix the Court reported in 2020 that the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts had mobilized judges to lobby against proposed free PACER legislation. According to the group, opponents of the measure have argued making the service free to use would cost $2 billion and that it would spike filing fees.

But in a 2020 letter sent to the U.S. Judicial Conference, a group of government IT and legal technology experts estimated that removing the PACER paywall would cost between $10 and $20 million over the first two years or so and then roughly $5 million annually.

Wyden said Tuesday that his new bipartisan bill would save taxpayers more than $60 million in PACER operating costs and give the courts overhead to make access to case records free of charge.

“For far too long, unnecessary paywalls have kept the American people from freely accessing public court records,” said the Oregon Democrat.

As of Tuesday afternoon, Wyden and Kennedy’s bill had yet to be assigned to a committee. The Senate Judiciary Committee has considered previous iterations of the Open Courts Act.

The federal judiciary has previously faced scrutiny for how it’s used revenue gathered from PACER user fees. A judge in 2024 approved a roughly $125 million settlement in a class action in which plaintiffs accused the Administrative Office of using fees to install audio systems on flat-screen televisions used by jurors. The judiciary also used PACER revenue to fund a study on the feasibility of adding state court records to the repository, among other things.

A federal appeals court in 2020 ruled that Congress only gave the judiciary authority to cover electronic docketing fees and not additional expenses.

Follow @BenjaminSWeiss