The House Judicial Committee just came out strongly in favor of the "Free PACER" bill. The quotes are just incredible. We'll put some here....
Nadler: "Judiciary records systems have long lagged behind modern standards of accessibility and openness."
"It is a disservice that in today's digital age the public's access to public records and public proceedings is so resource-intensive and burdensome."
More Nadler: "This does not reflect the modern standards the public deserves"
"it is indfensible that the public must pay fees...to know what is happening in their own courts."
More Nadler: "The PACER paywall also restricts access to justice by increasing the cost of doing the research needed to compentently pursue a case, inhibits innovation of legal services, and [...] reduces judicial transparency and legitimacy of the courts."
More Nadler: "These are sensible and important steps that would bring the judiciary's record system into the modern age."
"Takes a significant step forward in making the federal judiciary more modern, more open, and accessible to the public it serves."
Ranking Member Jordan: "Commonsense reforms contained in the bill are long overdue."
Johnson (bill co-sponsor): "The public has a fundamental right to the public documents in the courthouse, because those documents enable the public to see what justice looks like on paper."
More Johnson: "The prices are like a keep out sign for the little guy."
"It can cost hundreds of dollars to read the filings in one case."
"$100-140M/year is a lot of money taken from people who are exercising their fundamental right to access public court documents."
More Johnson: "It's unconscionable."
"The public will be able to view public documents online for free."
Johnson:"Imposes unnecessary burdens on journalists, academics and pro se litigants as they engage in the constitutionally enshrined activities of observing and reporting on the court's activities"
"This bill is [...] about changing the system so it's fairer to the little guy."
Johnson: "Convenient access to public records in federal courthouses shouldn't be a privilege just for the wealthy few and their silk-stalking, tassle-shoe-wearing corporate lawyers." (!)
Lofgren: "Open access to public documents should be the norm for all parts of government, including judicial."
"Open access should clear the way for deep research to be done by scholars."
Lofgren: "I have every belief that we will see this create a whole new industry in the U.S., and a whole new capacity to understand the judiciary and our laws. "
Stanton: "Meaningful legislation that'll make our courts more accessible to every American."
"You shouldn't have to be a lawyer or law student to access these records. They belong to every American and every person should have equal free access."
Stanton: "Great for our democracy."
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
We just deleted thousands of court records from our servers because the PACER fee schedule is an unethical racket. A few words in a weekend thread....
We scraped these records for a researcher using a fee waiver they got. According to the fee schedule, any content that you get while using such a waiver cannot be shared. This is the extremely absurd official policy:
So what happens is first we download the content, then instead of sharing it with the public, we delete it.
Once, in a fit of honesty, a high-level member of the AO explained that the reason for this was because otherwise it would undermine the fee schedule.🤯
There's a lot going on with this bill to enhance judicial security. The Senate Judiciary Committee just voted on it and, yeah, no politician is going to vote against a bill literally named after a judge's horrifically murdered son. But there's cause for concern here. 1/
We'd hoped not to get involved with this bill, but it affects us directly. It makes it illegal for a site like CourtListener to post certain kinds of information about judges online. We'd have to start taking down information if this passed (or fighting @uscourts in court). 2/
If that sounds like a #1A violation to you, you'd find yourself on a lonely podium. The bill is being pushed by @uscourts, is endorsed by the American Bar Association, and the major associations for judges. It gained half a dozen co-sponsors in the Senate today. 3/
Today is a two-steps-forward-one-step-back day for the Judiciary. They finally took our 2017 advice and established a policy for good guys to report security problems in their websites. This is really good — in principle, anyway. uscourts.gov/news/2021/10/1…
The general idea is that online systems are always under attack, so you want to encourage good hackers by saying things like: 1. These are the rules for trying to break our stuff 2. If you break those rules, here's what we'll do 3. If you don't break those rules, you're a friend
Sometimes you even have a "bug bounty," where you say, "If you find a problem and tell us, we'll give you money." Most of the Internet giants do this. Some will pay LOTS of money for a vulnerability. Great. Our policy is here: free.law/vulnerability-…
Four years in the making, today we are announcing a new one-of-a-kind database containing the investment and conflict information for every federal judge. Spanning 17 years, this database was extracted from over 250,000 pages of judicial financial records. free.law/2021/09/28/ann…
In tandem with developing this new data, we collaborated with a team of investigative journalists at The Wall Street Journal.
They spent the past several months diving into the data. The first of their groundbreaking reports is out today: wsj.com/articles/131-f…
To build this database, we collected over 27,000 financial disclosure forms filed by federal judges, magistrates, and justices. We are releasing over 1.5M investment transactions, 29,000 reimbursements, 1,700 gifts, and more. Details here: courtlistener.com/coverage/finan…
Big new feature today: Tagging! You can now use tags on CourtListener to create private or public collections of dockets! courtlistener.com/help/tags/
We plan to allow you to tag documents or other resources soon. At launch you can tag dockets however you please, and then create detailed webpages for your tags. The help text has the details: courtlistener.com/help/tags/
In addition to this great new feature, we've got a few bonus features. First, CourtListener just got faster. You should notice it a bit, particularly on slower connections.
The judicial branch commissioned @18F to do an 11-week study of PACER/CM/ECF. The result is a monumental leap forward in the effort to fix the PACER problem. Finally, we have some details about what's happening with this vital resource. A few notes…
First, if you're in the legal, technology, or government space, you should read this thing. From technology to contracting to how PACER/CM/ECF works, we've never seen so many best practices in one place. Dip this document in bronze so it'll last forever: free.law/pdf/pacer-path…
Now, some highlights (but go read it!). First, the bottom line: "The judiciary should build a new system."