Access to Justice

National Veterans Legal Services Program v. United States

In National Veterans Legal Services Program v. United States, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the government may not use PACER fees to cover the costs of services unrelated to providing the public access to electronic docketing information.

Case Summary

The Public Access to Court Electronics Records (PACER) system is a decentralized system of electronic judicial-records databases.  Under federal law, the government is permitted to charge people fees to access records on PACER.  Today, those fees are set at 10 cents per page (with a maximum fee of $3.00 per record) and $2.40 per audio file.  In April 2016, three nonprofit organizations – National Veterans Legal Services Program, National Consumer Law Center, and Alliance for Justice – filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging that today’s PACER fees violate federal law because the fees exceed the cost to the government of providing documents on PACER.  In March 2018, the district court agreed, ruling that PACER fees violate the E-Government Act of 2002, and the government appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.  CAC filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of former Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, who sponsored the E-Government Act of 2002, in support of the plaintiffs.

Our brief argued that the government’s practice of charging fees that exceed the costs of providing access to the court documents is at odds with the text and history of the E-Government Act, as well as Congress’s plan in passing it.  To start, today’s PACER fees are at odds with the plain language of federal law.  Under 28 U.S.C. § 1913 note, the government is allowed to charge fees “only to the extent necessary” “to reimburse expenses incurred in providing [PACER records-access] services.”  Yet PACER fees today are “higher than the marginal cost of disseminating the information,” and some of these fees are used for projects far removed from providing document access on PACER.  Our brief did not question the merits of those other programs, but simply argued that federal law prohibits the imposition of PACER fees to fund them.  In addition, excessively high PACER fees impose a serious financial barrier to members of the public who wish to access court records, and these fees thereby create a system in which rich and poor do not have equal access to important government documents. Recognizing the inequity of such a system and the importance of public access to court documents, Congress amended the governing statute to include the “to the extent necessary” language and thereby made this information “freely available to the greatest extent possible.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling, allowing PACER fees to be set “to the amount needed to cover expenses incurred in services providing public access to federal court electronic docketing information.”  This includes Case Management and Electronic Case Filing (CM/ECF) services, but not unrelated services such as courtroom technology, e-juror services, or notification services for local law enforcement entities.

Case Timeline

  • January 28, 2019

    CAC files amicus brief

    Fed. Cir. Amicus Brief
  • February 3, 2020

    The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit hears oral arguments

  • August 6, 2020

    The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issues its decision

More from Access to Justice

Access to Justice
May 9, 2024

RELEASE: In overbroad ruling, conservative majority restricts the rights of innocent car owners whose vehicles are seized by the government

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Culley v. Marshall, a...
By: Brian R. Frazelle
Access to Justice
U.S. Supreme Court

Williams v. Washington

In Williams v. Washington, the Supreme Court is considering whether states may force civil rights litigants who bring claims against state officials in state court under Section 1983 to first exhaust their administrative remedies.
Access to Justice
April 12, 2024

RELEASE: Court Unanimously Rejects Atextual “Transportation Industry” Requirement for FAA Exemption, Allowing Truck Drivers Their Day in Court

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries...
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen
Access to Justice
March 20, 2024

RELEASE: Justices Weigh Immunity for Government Officials Who Target Political Adversaries with Arrest

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Gonzalez v....
By: Brian R. Frazelle
Access to Justice
February 20, 2024

RELEASE: Court Grapples Once Again with Federal Arbitration Act’s Exemption for Transportation Workers

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Bissonnette v....
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen
Access to Justice
February 19, 2024

Bakery Drivers Head to High Court Searching for Arbitration Exit

Bloomberg Law
Industry test would add fights on transportation firm meaning With circuits split, high court to...
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen, Jennifer Bennett