PACER Fees Rising 20 Percent Because Screw You, That’s Why

The federal judiciary heard the public’s appeal that court records should be free and openly accessible as a matter of public policy, and responded, “What about a 20 percent fee hike, instead?”

The courts announced last week that it would implement a “modest temporary increase” to the cost of reading court records off the no-frills database. Starting January 1, the per-page PACER fee climbs from 10 cents to 12 cents — a “modest” 20 percent — for the very “temporary” period of five years. In their limited defense, it is the first fee adjustment in roughly 15 years, but it’s a fee adjustment that runs the wrong direction.

The money is earmarked for a projected $700-to-$800 million modernization project, which sounds comically excessive until you remember that a few years ago the judges were claiming with a straight face that running PACER cost $2 billion. That claim was, in fact, bullshit. PACER currently pulls in about $147 million a year, vastly more than it costs to serve as a repository for a few PDFs and a retrograde search engine. What do the courts do with all this money to run a website so complex that you could have hosted it on Tripod in 1994? Well, historically, they used it as a slush fund!

In 2024, a class action forced the Administrative Office to return roughly $125 million it had spent on things having nothing to do with public access like courtroom audio gear, flat-screen televisions for jurors, and office redecoration.

If only Judge Ross had access to some PACER funds, we may not have had the couch cushion flip heard around the world.

“The higher fee the judiciary plans to charge PACER users come January is hard to view as anything other than price gouging,” Gabe Roth of Fix the Court explains. “Court records are public information, so people should be able to access them online for free, especially when the actual cost of pulling up a filing is far closer to a tiny fraction of a penny per page than $0.12.”

He is right about the fraction of a penny, and there is a statute that agrees with him. The E-Government Act of 2002 permits the courts to charge for PACER “only to the extent necessary” to provide public access. Twelve cents a page to deliver a document that costs a sliver of a cent to serve is not necessary. At least not without some kind of tangible improvement to one of the worst user experiences on the internet.

Here’s where the courts would argue that this is justified by mounting cybersecurity concerns, which is an excuse that feels like the last refuge of the scoundrel. PACER did get breached last year by hackers aligned with the Russian government. But this is not an $800 million problem. “It is also hard to believe that building a website for unadorned, black-and-white court filings and docket sheets should cost three-quarters of a billion dollars,” Roth continued.

We’re not talking about an F-35! Though maybe that is the right analogy, because it’s also ridiculously expensive and mostly useless. It’s a database. This is more like a $7 million project than a $700 million dollar one.

And, yes, PACER struggles with power users hammering the servers, a problem likely exacerbated by AI tools scraping dockets at scale. But this is a “taking a fraction of a penny up to a penny” problem, not a 12-cent problem. If the courts want to introduce a progressive marginal tax on mass users, that would be better, but it’s still putting a sizable toll booth in front of journalists, researchers, and nonprofits who may well need a lot of documents.

And yes, the judiciary raised the fee-free quarterly exemption from $30 to $40, but this shouldn’t be a static line drawing. There’s a vast difference between someone downloading $50 a quarter and a bot downloading $50 an hour.

There is already a bipartisan fix on the table. The Open Courts Act, reintroduced this month by John “Not That One” Kennedy and Ron Wyden would make PACER free, consolidate the document repository and electronic filing systems, and, require a 60-day public comment period before any future fee hike plus a GAO review of how the money is spent. “Americans should not have to sell plasma to read public court records,” Kennedy said, channeling Foghorn Leghorn.

By the way, we all realize that’s not Kennedy’s actual voice, right? The man went to Oxford — and we don’t mean Ole Miss — he absolutely does not talk like this naturally.

If the courts feel they need to gouge people to modernize their system, they need to submit to congressional oversight. Chief Justice John Roberts and his ilk enjoy invoking the separation of powers to get out of adhering to basic ethical standards, but that’s not how the concept is supposed to work.

Roberts envisions the separation of powers as shielding branches from each other, but separation of powers actually envisions a system of checks and balances between branches to keep everyone honest. Branches are NOT expected to be cloistered off from each other, but to have to come hat in hand to a sibling branch to get stuff done. The Open Courts Act would force the courts to recognize that they can’t run a private fundraiser to invest in boondoggles without Congress.

Earlier: When Federal Judges Said Free PACER Would Cost $2B, They Were Completely Full Of Crap
PACER Gets Pwned: Hackers Breach Dinosaur Filing System
PACER Sucks More Than Usual, And We Know Exactly Who To Blame
Roberts Says Separation Of Powers Means He Can’t Testify, Senate Should Remind Him It Also Means ‘Good Luck, Paying Your Bills, A**hole!’
‘Do You Have A Lot Of Trouble Answering Questions Generally In Life Or Just When You Come In Front Of The Court?’

---

Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter or Bluesky if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news.