Court Records Should Be Free | Electronic Frontier Foundation
Skip to main content
AboutContact
Press
People
Opportunities
IssuesFree Speech
Privacy
Creativity and Innovation
Transparency
International
Security
Artifical Intelligence
Our WorkDeeplinks Blog
Press Releases
Events
Legal Cases
Whitepapers
Podcast
Annual Reports
Take ActionAction Center
Volunteer
Follow EFF
ToolsPrivacy Badger
Surveillance Self-Defense
Certbot
Atlas of Surveillance
Cover Your Tracks
Street Level Surveillance
apkeep
Shop
Donate
DonateDonate to EFF
Shop
Giving Societies
Sponsorships
Other Ways to Give
Membership FAQ
Email updates on news, actions,
and events in your area.
Join EFF Lists
Copyright (CC BY)
Trademark
Privacy Policy
Thanks
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Donate
If you use technology, this fight is yours.Donate today
Court Records Should Be Free
DEEPLINKS BLOG
By Joe Mullin<br>June 18, 2026
Court Records Should Be Free
Share It
Share on Mastodon<br>Share on Bluesky<br>Share on Facebook<br>Copy link
Court records belong to the public. Yet anyone seeking access to federal court filings through PACER, a government software system that stands for Public Access to Court Electronic Records, is usually required to pay hefty fees to search for and view documents. PACER’s fees have long acted as a barrier that makes it hard, especially for low income people, to see and understand the work produced by our own public servants.
That's why EFF joined a broad group of organizations supporting the Open Courts Act of 2026, legislation that would modernize the federal courts' electronic filing systems and eliminate PACER fees.
The bill would replace the aging PACER and CM/ECF systems with a modern, unified platform designed to improve public access, strengthen cybersecurity, and reduce long-term costs. Supporters note that PACER currently collects more than $150 million annually in fees from the public, despite court records being public documents.
The Open Courts Act would also make court records easier to find, access, and understand. The legislation builds on a similar proposal, also supported by EFF, that previously won bipartisan support in the Senate Judiciary Committee but did not become law before the end of the congressional session.
This is not a new issue for EFF. More than a decade ago, we criticized PACER's paywalls and the removal of some court records from online access, arguing that the public should not have to pay to read the law and the judicial decisions that shape it. The Open Courts Act would move U.S. courts a big step closer to that goal.
In addition to EFF, the bill is supported by Fix the Court, the group pushing this bill forward; the Free Law Project, which maintains RECAP, software that has created a large archive of legal opinions and other court records; as well as civil society groups, open government watchdogs, and media groups.
Public access to the courts is a cornerstone of democratic accountability. Let’s eliminate unnecessary barriers to court records, and bring the federal judiciary’s tech into the modern era.
Read the full letter supporting the Open Courts Act of 2026
Related Issues
Open Access<br>Transparency<br>Free Speech
Share It
Share on Mastodon<br>Share on Bluesky<br>Share on Facebook<br>Copy link
Related Updates
The ability to access publicly available information using automated tools is a central value and benefit of a free and open internet. Automated access—often called crawling or scraping—powers important, useful tools for locating, preserving, and analyzing online information. For example, crawling and scraping helps journalists, researchers, and watchdog organizations...
Knowledge production doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Every great scientific breakthrough is built on prior work, and an ongoing exchange with peers in the field. That’s why we need to address the threat of major publishers and platforms having an improper influence on how scientific knowledge is accessed—or outright suppressed...
Creating and sharing knowledge are defining traits of humankind, yet copyright law has grown so restrictive that it can require acts of civil disobedience to ensure that students and scholars have the books they need. Unless publishing gatekeepers adopt drastically more equitable practices and become partners in disseminating knowledge, they...
Two appeals courts have recently rejected efforts by private parties to use copyright to restrict access to the laws that most directly affect ordinary citizens: regulations that ensure our homes, workplaces, devices, and many other products, are safe and fit for purpose. Apparently hoping the third time will be the...
Who needs a DDoS (Denial of Service) attack when you have a new president? As of February 2nd, thousands of web pages and datasets have been removed from U.S. government agencies following a series of executive orders. The impacts span the Department of Veteran Affairs and the ...
Aaron Swartz...