Rendered at 08:39:35 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
rmunn 3 days ago [-]
A point of interest, which many HN readers may already know but I'm mentioning in case anyone doesn't: although court records on PACER cost a fee to access (at least currently they do), they are not copyrighted, and once you have obtained a copy, you are free to redistribute it. That's why sites like RECAP can exist.
tptacek 3 days ago [-]
The discourse over PACER fees recapitulates a very common public policy conundrum, and we should all be more thoughtful about discussing it.
In the municipality where I live, we're statutorily required to replace lead service lines[†] within the next 5-10 years (I forget how many). The municipality replaces the trunk lines, and homeowners are required to replace the last hop at their own (significant) expense.
Naturally, people are extremely upset about this. They're all being forced to spend a bunch of money, out of the blue. They all want the municipality to pay for their own service line replacement. Other municipalities are doing this.
But the thing here is: there's no free money. We all pay for the service line replacement one way or the other, because the ultimate source of funds for the things the municipality pays for is our property tax levy. In fact, having the municipality pay for homeowner service line replacement is straightforwardly regressive: it's a subsidy to homeowners, paid in part out of the pockets of people who don't own.
A similar dilemma faces PACER. Overwhelmingly, PACER is used by attorneys, who are generally well-compensated professionals with a whole host of protectionist policies insulating them from market forces. Court records can, of course, be made "free". But nothing is actually free. To make those records free, you have to take money from the general fund, which means the tax payments of people who have nothing to do with the legal profession are... funding the legal profession.
That doesn't mean I think it's great that PACER charges. Speaking as a nonlawyer who uses PACER kind of weirdly a lot, it's also not good; it's pretty archaic. But it's also very cheap. I'd imagine that most of the use cases for which it isn't below the cost noise floor are cases that serve professions, in which case I have to ask what the public policy case is for subsidizing those uses.
I don't know, things are complicated.
[†] Added context: lead service lines in Chicagoland aren't necessarily immediately problematic, because the water management department here carefully manages the supply to ensure lead is mineralized; if you test your lead-service tap water for lead, you won't find any.
BobbyTables2 3 days ago [-]
The two aren’t quite identical.
The municipality could service all the homes and pay for it with taxes, probably using their own people or a negotiated contract.
The private (and usually no -savvy) individual has much less negotiating power and is going to get taken to the cleaners by a plumber. Three houses in a street are likely to have 3 different plumbers on 3 different dates.
It’s just like that the cost per square foot to pave a single driveway vs the entire sidewalk or foundations for a whole neighborhood.
AnthonyMouse 3 days ago [-]
The other side of that coin is that the homeowner is paying their own money and is therefore going to actually negotiate or shop around for the best price. Whereas the government is spending someone else's money and then the way the person choosing who to award the contract to gets to have more money in their own pocket is under the table.
cucumber3732842 3 days ago [-]
The buyer has next to no negotiating leverage on a small (to the seller) job they're being compelled to purchase by the government.
AnthonyMouse 3 days ago [-]
When there are multiple providers their leverage is the ability to choose a different one. Consider food: You have to buy it or you die, yet everything from farmers to cafes operate on razor-thin margins, why? Because it's a commodity and the customer can go across the street.
The prerequisite here, however, is that it's actually a competitive market. Two suppliers colluding or mirroring each other doesn't count.
cucumber3732842 2 days ago [-]
That's the magic of it. You can't just conjure plumbers out of thin air, have some handyman do it, threaten to have your uncle from another state do it, etc, etc, because in order to get your magic piece of paper that says you've done the work the person doing it needs to be licensed by (an agency deputized by) the government and that intentionally takes time to constrain supply.
If this were the government telling everyone to buy landscaping services or something else that's not intentionally supply constrained by the government to benefit incumbent you'd have an argument.
AnthonyMouse 2 days ago [-]
Obviously the argument is that they shouldn't constrain the supply.
bebe83939 3 days ago [-]
Plus homeowner may decide to skip electric utility completely, and go with isolated home solar.
Extreme case is south africa, blackout 30% of time, and people are not allowed local solars (it makes goverment look bad).
mistrial9 3 days ago [-]
other extreme case, California, where electricity costs are a large multiple of US averages, and the utility company owns military equipment. PG&E + minions monitor every connection, and charge to connect to the grid. High quality solar cannot be connected to the grid by regulation, not law, unless supervised by PG&E and minions. Naturally the regulations de facto equate to a monthly bill in a certain non-free range, no matter how much effort the client site makes.
bebe83939 3 days ago [-]
> High quality solar
> no matter how much effort the client site makes
I doubt solar provides stable predictable current 24/7 with warranty amd penalties. That is the hard part, and what it takes to be "high quality".
State sized grid is not a joke.
mistrial9 2 days ago [-]
checkout "batteries" for new info
agree, state grid is no joke
thrance 3 days ago [-]
Now apply that logic to healthcare. Single payers are able to get much better deals.
tptacek 3 days ago [-]
Not really, no. Medicare wildly overpays for everything compared to the rest of the world.
skinfaxi 3 days ago [-]
Wouldn't a more apt comparison be between Medicare and non-government insurers in the US?
AnthonyMouse 3 days ago [-]
There isn't really any way to make that comparison because Medicare provides a different type of benefits to a different subset of the population. Private insurers don't offer policies to the elderly that cover the things Medicare covers because those things are already covered by Medicare.
People sometimes try to measure things like "overhead" but that also doesn't really work. If one entity pays $10M in claims but half of them are unknowingly fraudulent and another spends $1M to prevent the fraud, the first one is paying $10M with 0% overhead for fraud detection while the other is paying $5M with 20% overhead for fraud detection. Comparing the percentages implies the second one has "higher overhead" but it's also the one paying $6M instead of $10M.
And the same thing bleeds into the prices for specific services. A provider will happily give you a "20% discount" on the price if you don't bother to check that half their claims are fake. Then you're actually paying them 60% more while the books show them charging you 20% less per procedure.
On top of that, the market for many medical services in the US is extremely captured. The majority of states still have Certificate of Need laws, which are literally laws prohibiting new providers from entering the market if the local government (i.e. the incumbents) think the result would be "too much" competition. The AMA consistently lobbies to limit the number of medical residency slots and sustain a doctor shortage, and doctors who immigrate from other countries, even licensed physicians in countries with first rate healthcare and medical education systems, can't practice in the US without doing a US residency, which in turn consumes one of the residency slots and prevents immigration from alleviating the shortage whatsoever.
The premise is that competitive markets result in lower prices, not that uncompetitive markets do.
hn_acker 3 days ago [-]
Medicare covers only a minority of the population but (and?) relies heavily on the general US private healthcare system. At minimum, Medicare cost is affected by high drug prices (perpetuated by lobbying-influenced government avoidance of price controls), relatively high coverage denials (which Congress and the executive branch refuse to regulate), and lack of vision or dental coverage unless people use "Medicare" Advantage (which currently gives private insurers too much leeway to raise costs for the government without a corresponding healthcare benefit [1]).
Anyway, I think parent comment to yours is using single-payer in the sense that implies universal healthcare [2].
Drug prices are less than 10% of all US health care spending. Drive all drug prices to zero dollars and we get a grocery store circular discount on total health costs.
nativeit 3 days ago [-]
I see this kind of argument a lot, but I have to assume the very noticeable ignorance of collective bargaining power in this framing is intentional?
AnthonyMouse 3 days ago [-]
"Collective bargaining" is essentially a strategy for contending with a monopolist by getting your own. There are three major problems with it.
The first is that it doesn't actually get you out of the monopoly. If there is an uncompetitive market and you're required by law (or otherwise compelled) to purchase their services, making the buyer a monopsony still doesn't give them any leverage because they have to contract for the services even if the provider won't lower the price, and the provider knows that.
The second is that the purchasing bureaucracy then becomes a target for capture and has all the wrong incentives to resist it. They control a trillion dollars in purchasing power but it's really about a million providers getting an average of a million dollars each. That's the recipe for doing something inefficient a million times over because every provider wants to get $2M instead of $500k and will lobby for regulations or offer kickbacks or commit fraud to get it, and the public doesn't have the bandwidth to apprehend a million individual cases of things going crooked when each one is only 0.0001% of the total. And meanwhile "a million providers" still doesn't imply there is real competition to get you out of (1), because a radiology lab in Philadelphia isn't a substitute for a neurologist in Denver or vice versa.
The third is that you still don't have any sensible pricing mechanism. Even if you have a monopsony, how do they come up with a price to offer? Dart board? Demanding to look at the supplier's accounts, thereby giving the supplier an incentive to waste money because they're getting cost plus? The only real way to give them the incentive to do it for less if they can is to have alternate suppliers so that they each lose the contract if they don't offer the best price, but not having that was the original problem that "collective bargaining" was supposed to address.
Whereas if you instead focus on sustaining a competitive market then "collective bargaining" is just wasteful overhead, because the competition is already keeping margins thin so there is little more to extract from the supplier and you're only unnecessarily subjecting yourself to a layer of indirection and the principal-agent problem.
nativeit 3 days ago [-]
The reason a vendor can fleece public services in the first place is, somewhat ironically, the limited access to free public records by independent journalists. I’d reckon we need more freedom of information, more regulatory oversight, and more participation by the public. The cynicism that governments are inherently dishonest and feckless (rather than being designed as-such by the self-interested lobbies pushing this cynicism) is one big reason such corruption has become so prevalent.
lesuorac 3 days ago [-]
I've always thought the reason a vendor can fleece the public is a mixture of 2 things.
1) You get elected by convincing voters to vote for you. Which is not the same as actually getting the lowest prices.
2) Core competency has been stamped out of a lot of government agencies and so if you're a skill negotiator you want to be collecting the commission from the sales contract to the government as opposed to a low salary from being the government agent.
So at the end of the day, making all these contracts public wouldn't fix future ones from being issued. Although I'm still for more sunshine.
ozozozd 3 days ago [-]
Exactly what I was going to say. And exactly what’s intended: for someone to make money.
IIAOPSW 3 days ago [-]
As a non-attorney that has also used PACER, I don't think of it in quite these terms. Sure maybe there's some level of public subsidy by making it free, but like you say, relative to the legal profession that subsidy per lawyer is at the noise floor. On the other hand, the value of making it free to people outside the legal profession is well worth the degree to which we'd be subsidizing the people in it.
For example, journalists. There's enormous investigative journalism value in the documents that have been filed in court. People say all sorts of shit in affidavits which turns out to be relevant outside the context they intended it for. PACER should be free, if nothing else than for the public interest value of its content (outside as well as inside the court).
tptacek 3 days ago [-]
Right, but I fixate on the fact that we could easily solve the journalism problem without making it free. Just raise the free tier cap.
Making PACER entirely free is regressive, absent some new scheme to single out the lawyers (like a dedicated lawyer tax or something, which runs into constitutional problems.)
gucci-on-fleek 3 days ago [-]
> Overwhelmingly, PACER is used by attorneys, who are generally well-compensated professionals with a whole host of protectionist policies insulating them from market forces. Court records can, of course, be made "free". But nothing is actually free. To make those records free, you have to take money from the general fund, which means the tax payments of people who have nothing to do with the legal profession are... funding the legal profession.
Couldn't you just add a "are you a lawyer" checkbox, and only charge a fee if you check it? It would be trivial to lie here, but I doubt that many lawyers would want to risk getting caught defrauding the government when doing so would only save them a few thousand dollars a year.
NoMoreNicksLeft 3 days ago [-]
Lawyers don't use PACER. They'll have a LexisNexis or Westlaw terminal. That gets them all of the rulings and so forth, but annotated.
PACER is more or less journalists, activists, and so forth.
The fees PACER charges doesn't reflect the cost that the government bears to make it available (it's much higher). It's a poor service, seemingly designed to discourage its own use. And the bureaucracy within the court system obligated to provide it seems to feel that it's far more than a burden but even an intrusion into matters that the courts would keep from the public, were it allowed.
ameister14 3 days ago [-]
>Lawyers don't use PACER. They'll have a LexisNexis or Westlaw terminal. That gets them all of the rulings and so forth, but annotated.
I don't know about that; I've used PACER a fair amount, despite also using Westlaw.
howard941 3 days ago [-]
Attorneys use PACER (fed by CM/ECF) to retrieve pleadings. Very little is done with hardcopy anymore.
gucci-on-fleek 3 days ago [-]
> They'll have a LexisNexis or Westlaw terminal. That gets them all of the rulings and so forth, but annotated.
So I'm not familiar with this area at all, but aren't only the major rulings annotated? Based off of this sibling comment [0] (which I have no idea is correct or not), PACER is mainly used for exhibits, briefs, and motions, and I wouldn't expect for LexisNexis and Westlaw to annotate these.
It's easy to come up with practical segmentation strategies and we should pursue them. An obvious one is jacking up the free tier, from $30/quarter to something much higher, like $1000/quarter.
I mean, maybe the right answer is just to make the whole thing free. I don't know. I just know it's more complicated than the standard message board discourse suggests.
SkiFire13 3 days ago [-]
$30/quarter doesn't look like a "free tier" in the first place
sokoloff 3 days ago [-]
It is. If you incur less than $30 in PACER charges in a quarter, they waive the bill.
awinter-py 3 days ago [-]
this is right if pacer is expensive to operate for a real reason
but 1) it has high revenue which 2) is required to go to expenses, which 3) it may not be going to expenses
courtlistener is providing a much better service at no cost to the public through donations; it's reasonable to say 'govt is required to feed new data to courtlistener and friends', gov doesn't have to operate pacer anymore, everyone is happy
tptacek 3 days ago [-]
My expectation would be that the costs of operating the PACER system encompass a lot of basic costs of handling filing and docket management that aren't relevant to passive consumers of PACER, but that don't have a clean interface to charge at otherwise, in much the same way that gas taxes are in significant part a tax to fund maintenance of roadways.
> I'm the director of Free Law Project. For the case mentioned in the article we actually did a full expert testimony figuring out roughly how much per page it'd cost to run PACER using AWS GovCloud and a handful of other assumptions.
It was...half a ten thousandth of a penny per page, IIRC:
That's missing my point. I too believe that the cost of serving static files is effectively epsilon. But that's not all PACER fees pay for.
toomuchtodo 3 days ago [-]
Your point is taken, it’s simply a philosophical debate between public funding and user fees, and if the system is exposing the right folks to the relevant majority of costs vs socializing the costs broadly. My position is that if the costs are relatively insignificant, socializing them is simply more efficient. I accept others may have a different philosophical take. I suppose user and landing fees in US general and commercial aviation are a similar analogy for comparison in the support of fee collection.
> The judiciary opposes measures that shift the costs of providing access to PACER to litigants filing cases in federal courts, unduly hindering access to justice
That's their response to the open courts act of 2021, which would have made pacer free.
As a user of both courtlistener and pacer, I mostly believe freelaw can deliver a better cheaper equivalent than what exists, even including the submission systems. (With the caveat that I have used state court e-file systems but only briefly touched the federal ones).
If pacer revenue is paying the filing clerks, I probably feel differently; clerks are necessary components of the system who cannot be replaced by technology today.
lukeschlather 3 days ago [-]
We know where all the money in this system is: it's in LexisNexis and Westlaw. Each of them has revenue over $3B, individually. Presumably they have some lesser-known competitors. PACER fees are $150M. What percentage of PACER fees are paid by LexisNexis and Westlaw anyway in the course of their data ingestion? I'm not sure it really matters, we could simply restructure with a new tax on value-add services like LexisNexis that pulls in $200M, make PACER free, and everyone would be happier, probably including the value-add legal service providers.
tptacek 3 days ago [-]
Wait why are we taxing LexisNexis? Making PACER free makes sense (though, again: doing that is regressive); it's a government-run service that is the system of record for court filings.
lukeschlather 2 days ago [-]
You asserted that we need the money PACER fees bring in - taxing businesses like LexisNexis seems like a way to get the same kind of money that wouldn't be regressive, if we really need to replace that revenue, and it comes from more or less the same place, without being paid by people who can't afford it.
tptacek 2 days ago [-]
The federal government can apply fee structures to services it offers. It cannot in fact just randomly point at things private organizations do and tax them.
lukeschlather 2 days ago [-]
Really? Here are 3 examples, I'm not sure what you mean, Congress has extremely broad taxing authority. If what I suggest is unconstitutional (I'm curious to hear your justification for that) they could probably do it by putting terms of use on the PACER data, have a paid tier specifically for orgs that resell the data.
Fair enough, I was thinking about what the government could do without major congressional action. But still, not going to happen. For many reasons, but one of them is constitutional.
WestLaw is expressive. It's tricky to do targeted taxes on expressive organizations. Pesky First Amendment.
The big reason nothing like this is going to happen is that there are like 40 nerds in the country that care about it, and then a huge majority of the population that is reasonably well served by the current compromise.
ProllyInfamous 3 days ago [-]
>Speaking as a nonlawyer who uses PACER kind of weirdly a lot, it's also not good; it's pretty archaic
You would really enjoy reading Chief Justice Roberts' end of 2023 State of the US Federal Courts paper [†][ <6 pages ]. He discusses how their system has always been antiquated, resistant to change... but how significantly LLMs are going to change commoners' (like us!) access to the judicial system.
There are also many humorous musings about past Justices' hatred of new technology, and that ~"if some former Justices could they'd have gotten rid of most associates, too; but they were still technologically necessary"~.
My own forty-something brother is currently a state-level judge, and he still uses a typewriter, by choice, for more-privileged correspondence.
State of our times, l-onestar.
stult 3 days ago [-]
> A similar dilemma faces PACER. Overwhelmingly, PACER is used by attorneys, who are generally well-compensated professionals with a whole host of protectionist policies insulating them from market forces.
One of those protectionist policies is charging for PACER itself.
The costs of running PACER are absolutely trivial in comparison to the costs of running the judiciary. To the point that even bringing the point up is disingenuous to the point that it discredits everything else you say.
Case law is law. People are required to obey the law. They should be able to access the law so they can know how to follow it. It's that simple.
ipython 3 days ago [-]
The problem is - we are all required to abide by the law. And the law is at least partially determined by precedent established by previous court cases. But those cases are behind a paywall.
Yes everything costs money. But we expect that the government would provide services for the greater good of its citizens.
I can step foot in some of the greatest museums in the world for free in downtown dc. As a citizen I can get (and have) a reading card for the Library of Congress. For free. Are these services being provided by volunteers? No. My tax dollars pay for it. So should it fund electronic record keeping for legal proceedings.
hypersoar 3 days ago [-]
Federal judicial opinions are readily available online. The circuit courts and Supreme Court--i.e., the courts which actually establish precedent--post all of their opinions on their own websites. If your concern is knowing what courts (at least federal courts, where PACER is used) are saying so that you can follow the law, it's all out there for free. What PACER hosts is the rest of the case records: exhibits, briefs, motions, etc.
tptacek 3 days ago [-]
You're almost there but not completing the circuit. Could tax dollars pay for "free" PACER access? Absolutely they could. But is that policy distributionally (a) regressive, (b) progressive, or (c) neutral? The answer is probably (a). The tax dollars come out of everybody's pocket. The benefits accrue disproportionately to a wealthy professional class.
I think we're close to a pretty nice balance in the status quo: RECAP, and a free tier. If it's me, what you do is jack the free tier up from $30 to $1000.
ipython 3 days ago [-]
Who ultimately pays the fees from pacer? You’re telling me that, out of the goodness of their hearts, the lawyers take it out of their own paycheck?
You’d better believe that cost, however small, is passed along to the clients of those law firms.
Now if that cost were to go to zero- no I don’t think the lawyers will charge less. But I do think that even the presence of a paywall reinforces the perceived scarcity of the legal profession. My thought is that if these documents were available more freely, we would see more democratization of the legal system.
For example, small claims doesn’t require legal representation. But knowing previous case law could definitely help even a lay person prepare a case.
delusional 3 days ago [-]
> You’d better believe that cost, however small, is passed along to the clients of those law firms.
This line of reasoning devolves into pure power politics. If we assume costs would always be passed down, all public taxation policy will always land at the feet of the hungry, the only people who are unable to pass on the cost. For any taxation or redistribution policy to make sense, we must agree that some amount of the cost will manifest as lower demand or slimmer margins. Some of the cost must be born by the law firm.
> My thought is that if these documents were available more freely, we would see more democratization of the legal system.
Does that actually make sense? My understanding of the legal profession and the game theory around it, is that it's a supply side constrained system. If you're being charged, and might go to jail should you fail to defend yourself, you're going to hire the absolutely most expensive lawyer you can get your hands on. It doesn't really matter if you could defend yourself, it's just not worth the risk.
ipython 3 days ago [-]
Power politics? That seems a bit extreme. I’m just advocating for free access to more of the legal system.
I gave the example of museums and libraries which I assume we all agree are public goods and worth funding with tax dollars. In your example with criminal justice, we fund public defenders as well.
Knowledge as a whole is a supply side constrained system (maybe changing with llms??). As we have experienced, parents are more than willing to pay any price to send their kids to the most expensive (exclusive) college they can afford, to include going into debt. Yet we still find it useful as a society to fund public school and libraries so we can democratize knowledge to those with the interest to do so.
I think it’s been quite obvious for the past twenty years that any additional cost ultimately is passed to the customer. In the early 2000s the “fuel surcharges” started slipping in. Then telco companies started adding on fees for any compliance regime they were subject to. And so on it goes.
tptacek 3 days ago [-]
Sure, that's absolutely the case, but people overwhelmingly aren't involved in federal litigation. PACER is operating in an entirely different universe to local small claims courts.
ipython 3 days ago [-]
Admittedly a niche use case but I used pacer to research tcpa cases in order to bring litigation (successfully) against telemarketers in local courts.
iamnothere 3 days ago [-]
Except for corporate lawyers and a handful of highly successful biglaw attorneys, the law profession isn’t as profitable as it once was. Student loans and creeping costs have done a lot of damage. Same with many doctors who are having to go work for group practices owned by PE firms.
Free PACER access might actually help average people get better legal representation by reducing the cost burden on the small independent attorneys who don’t mingle with execs and politicians at the country club.
tptacek 3 days ago [-]
I think if you do the math on this you're going to find that PACER fees are not really a significant component of the cost of representation. Westlaw/Lexis-Nexis maybe?
iamnothere 3 days ago [-]
Fair, I agree that those are a much bigger component. Still, every little reduction in cost probably helps. The cost of education is the real killer but I have no idea how to fix that.
nickpsecurity 3 days ago [-]
We should always be allowed to read and know the law we're required to follow. Preferrably for free or easily.
fireflash38 3 days ago [-]
It's insane to me that this isn't the default view. How are you supposed to follow the law if you don't know what it is? Putting a price on it just makes it is basically criminalizing being poor.
Which is what we arguably have already considering the state of public defenders, jail, bail system, and how often the rich get off scot free for their crimes.
manyatoms 3 days ago [-]
> The problem is - we are all required to abide by the law. And the law is at least partially determined by precedent established by previous court cases. But those cases are behind a paywall.
In 2026, this is similar to having secret laws, as your LLM might not have a subscription or know to tell you to get one
greyface- 2 days ago [-]
> straightforwardly regressive
Fiscally? Sure. In terms of liberty? Absolutely not. We are talking about public access to law, which is foundational to a free society.
Federal courts are not strictly limited by tax revenue in the same way that state courts are, and I am more sympathetic to this line of argument on the state level. Finding replacement revenue is a legitimate concern, but a secondary one due to the federal government's deficit spending privilege.
adampunk 3 days ago [-]
The problem is threefold: the true marginal cost of a PACER page is closer to 0 than 10 cents; the fixed cost (building an electronic record system) is already paid by the public; and the complication of a price discrimination mechanism would drive up that marginal cost rather than capture true willingness to pay.
This trilemma shows up whenever we try to meter public goods in this fashion. We could, in theory, price public transit or water or what-have-you by evaluating willingness to pay and charging each person that value. However, in practice the invasive monitoring necessary to do so is an enormous burden. We can sort of spread this out with municipal services by (as you noted) replacing trunk lines/pipes with a general fund and asking individuals to pay for the last mile, but that mostly works because the real marginal cost is measurable and not near 0. Further, for utilities, the willingness to pay has good proxies: the end of the last mile is at a real house that isn’t going anywhere. For PACER I doubt that’s the case.
tptacek 3 days ago [-]
Again: PACER fees do not simply pay for the marginal cost of delivering a static file.
adampunk 2 days ago [-]
Right, but 1: We already pay for the fixed costs and 2: the real marginal cost--however you want to measure it--is still closer to 0 than 10 cents.
tptacek 2 days ago [-]
No, it pays for costs unrelated to serving static content. It's a use tax. The fees do not entirely have to do with paying for a website.
adampunk 2 days ago [-]
That’s right. And use taxes can and should be calibrated to not just collect money but achieve public policy objectives. If the real marginal cost were close to 10 cents a page, we might be able to argue that funding the system other ways would be more distortionary but it’s not. We have decided with lots of static file services (including Supreme Court opinions) that the right use tax is 0, because zero-cost access is a desirable quality in itself.
charcircuit 3 days ago [-]
Hosting files is practically free in 2026. Cost is not a problem here.
tptacek 3 days ago [-]
That's not what PACER fees pay for.
charcircuit 2 days ago [-]
Being able to upload new files? That's also cheap.
divbzero 3 days ago [-]
I agree with the analysis of lead service lines, but serving static files is lot cheaper than replacing underground pipes—so much cheaper that I think it’s qualitatively different.
3 days ago [-]
cucumber3732842 3 days ago [-]
At the very least the town could front the water/sewer project with a myriad of financial instruments and then let people pay over time, credit those who didn't need it, etc, etc. That's what they do when they actually give a crap about getting the project done. I seen it with my own eyes when they took everyone off well/septic around here.
Buuuut, that doesn't accomplish the secondary goal of incentivizing the departure of black grandma who has crappy landscaping or car part out guy or whoever else owns their own house and won't be kicked by rent but whose means and standard of living are below the vision of some snooty Chicago suburb. There's always that undertone to these sorts of things.
And if it's not that there's some local business connections that are angling for things to be structured a given way. The dirt work guy with a cousin on the board would much rather see the town force people to incur thousands of $5k jobs that he'll surely get a cut of rather than have to bid a single contract with the same or less profit that he will not necessarily win.
PACER (mostly, of course they don't want to give the public a tour of the sausage factory) isn't juggling 2nd and 3rd tier goals that are so objectionable they can't be talked about like your municipality is.
And frankly I think PACER should be free specifically to enable bulk access so that all sorts of parties can sift through it, present the data, fact check against it, perform meta analysis, etc, etc.
rootusrootus 3 days ago [-]
The water line cost should be spread amongst whoever was allowed to vote to make it happen. If non-homeowners were allowed to force homeowners to upgrade, they can help fund it.
rootusrootus 3 days ago [-]
Oh my, got a downvote for that. Someone always thinks homeowners are out to spite the world and should be punished for the privilege. Never change, HN, never change.
rayiner 3 days ago [-]
Excellent analogy. One note. As a result of a settlement, PACER waives usage fees under $30 per quarter, apparently on the theory that lawyers will rack up more than that while the general public won’t. Doesn’t totally fix the problem but it does move in that direction.
fireflash38 3 days ago [-]
I think there are clear benefits to having neighbors and your general community not lead poisoned.
So yeah, I think that cost should be split among the entire municipality.
I find it interesting that you have such a libertarian viewpoint on the one... But not the other. Is this not a direct government monopoly?
AnthonyMouse 3 days ago [-]
> But the thing here is: there's no free money. We all pay for the service line replacement one way or the other
Which is a major difference between that and PACER, since they're serving text and the marginal cost of more people having access to it is essentially zero.
If you make the homeowners pay for the service line replacement, the number of service lines that will be replaced is the same. If you make the public pay for access to the law, this happens:
> Overwhelmingly, PACER is used by attorneys, who are generally well-compensated professionals with a whole host of protectionist policies insulating them from market forces.
...because everyone else is priced out by the fees, or even just the friction of having to configure payments for someone who is only going to use it infrequently. Which means the general public loses out on having access to something it would have a negligible marginal cost to give them.
Imagine, for example, an open source project to search or otherwise process court opinions, which then needs access to all of them. If the government is charging per page, that's completely infeasible. If there is a public torrent of all the opinions, people get to do interesting things they currently can't. And this is not just public information but legal precedent that everyone is expected to comply with -- and yet is being charged to even read it.
Also, this isn't right even for the service lines:
> In fact, having the municipality pay for homeowner service line replacement is straightforwardly regressive: it's a subsidy to homeowners, paid in part out of the pockets of people who don't own.
As a minor point, municipalities get their revenue predominantly from property tax, which is collected from property owners.
The main issue is that the outlay is a fixed cost. The cost of replacing the service line will generally be similar for a $200k house as for a $2M house. Meanwhile taxes are collected in proportion to property value or income. If you tax everyone by even a flat X percent in order to give everyone a flat Y dollar amount benefit, the result is a progressive effective rate curve, because everyone gets e.g. a $10,000 benefit but a lower income person is paying $2500 in tax while a higher income person is paying $25,000, making the lower income person's net transfers to the government not just low but negative.
cvalka 3 days ago [-]
[flagged]
tptacek 3 days ago [-]
I am in fact not well educated. I earned (barely) a diploma from St. Ignatius College Prep (AMDG!) in Chicago in the mid-1990s, and that's it. So I think you have to grade me on a curve.
user3939382 3 days ago [-]
> the public should not have to pay to read the law
This goes back to Hammurabi. These decisions are the law. We pay tax dollars to create all this and even if we didn’t, if we’re held to these rulings we need to be able to read them.
qingcharles 3 days ago [-]
Statutes are free by law. There was a case a few years ago that definitively affirmed this. A lot of counties and municipalities have zoning laws and building codes, but they don't have staff to write them, so they buy stock model codes from a corporation that writes them. These venues were then telling their citizens they couldn't give them a free copy, they had to buy them.
Someone got sued for copyright infringement for giving away a copy of the statues, but they ultimately won.
See e.g., Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc. (2020) & Veeck v. Southern Building Code Congress Int'l (5th Cir. 2002).
derektank 3 days ago [-]
Case law is real law in a common law system. Parent is absolutely correct to point out that without access to court records, the public does not have a complete understanding of the law. Statutes only provide you the full picture in a civil law system.
qingcharles 3 days ago [-]
Agreed, e.g. case law provides interpretation of statutes to clarify their meaning. I just wanted to point out that the free-as-in-beer nature of statutes has been completely clarified, whereas case law and court records continue in some murky grey zone.
jacobmarble 3 days ago [-]
PACER is for federal courts, price is $1 per page.
I'm being sued in the State of Idaho, where the price of each page is $10.
Oops, I should know better. Thanks for the correction.
david_shi 3 days ago [-]
How did you find out? Did they serve you like in the movies?
da_chicken 3 days ago [-]
Well, there probably wasn't a concession stand.
tptacek 3 days ago [-]
PACER isn't even close to $1/page, and if you spend less than $30 (which is rather a lot of pages) in a quarter, it's free.
jacobmarble 3 days ago [-]
Embarrassed. PACER is $0.10 per page, Idaho courts charge $1.00 per page.
cdolan 4 days ago [-]
courtlistener and the Recap program fill a vital niche at the moment.
Recap takes any PACER document you purchase and automatically adds it to CourtListener for others to see/download.
Hopefully it will become obsolete soon!
qingcharles 3 days ago [-]
I've been burning up every cent of my free $30/month PACER credit liberating important filings into RECAP for the last five years. The last year and a half of this administration has made this task very hard to keep up with as there are so many federal lawsuits and criminal cases. I just screwed up and accidentally went over my free limit so now I owe a real pound of flesh to the courts. Maybe my debt will be wiped out when the new Act is effective?
Scoundreller 3 days ago [-]
And a protip for non-US HN readers: you don’t need to be a US resident/citizen to get your own account and make requests and contribute to RECAP yourself!
qup 3 days ago [-]
Which types of foreign citizens are that interested in US court cases?
Scoundreller 3 days ago [-]
Sometimes products/services you use are provided by US companies, and the juicy stuff is in the court filings.
GaryBluto 3 days ago [-]
The same type of eccentric foreign citizens you're likely to find here.
tptacek 3 days ago [-]
For the most part, RECAP just eliminates inconvenience. For matters of widespread interest, RECAP saves thousands of people from having to make PACER accounts. But the stuff that ends up on RECAP, for obvious reasons, tends to be the small minority of cases that the public is interested in, and for the most part that content is practically (sometimes literally) free.
I think RECAP rules a lot and I have the plugins enabled in the browser session I use to read PACER. I'm just saying, it's not really a liberation of all of PACER.
Scoundreller 3 days ago [-]
Sometimes you hit the sweet spot where you’re using up your $30 “free” credit and letting someone else use theirs for the next batch of documents. I don’t find it hard to find stuff that others haven’t submitted to RECAP.
qingcharles 3 days ago [-]
Agree -- RECAP is 100x easier to use than the official PACER. Plus RECAP is Google/LLM indexed, whereas PACER being paywalled means nothing is indexed, and their search is also annoying. In fact the whole PACER site has that real 1993 "I wrote this in perl with cgi-bin" feel.
awinter-py 3 days ago [-]
[dead]
panny 4 days ago [-]
>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.
Financial cost is one if the many ways the Government intentionally limits your access to your ability to uphold your rights.
4 days ago [-]
shevy-java 3 days ago [-]
Makes sense. Courts serve the public. It makes no sense to pay twice for that.
zftnb666 1 days ago [-]
Public records should be public. Charging for them is just a tax on knowing the law.
Henchman21 3 days ago [-]
A tangent perhaps, but the law itself should also be available to all for no cost.
silexia 3 days ago [-]
I would love for all court records, federal and state and local, to be public. But special interests keep gaining more and more advantage over the public in every area. Especially attorneys.
3 days ago [-]
0x59 3 days ago [-]
If anything it'd be free for approved partners. Think large legal firms, language model data collectors, etc
carlosjobim 3 days ago [-]
The entire reason to have a code of laws at all is to make justice a public matter. Otherwise we are back to blood feuds and might is right, if justice is to be a secret matter. Approved partner is any living and breathing human.
0x59 3 days ago [-]
I agree with you and am acknowledging that knowledge is power and controlled by the powerful.
A bit tangential. In Israel, case records are sort-of-free.
They're publicly available in a byzantine system maintained by the Court Management, a governmental entity (Net Hamishpat, "court net" - slightly deviating from Beit Hamishpat meaning "the court", https://www.court.gov.il/NGCS.Web.Site/HomePage.aspx), but it is not where cases and material are referenced from in the public sphere or legal docs.
Most professionals subscribe to Nevo (https://www.nevo.co.il/), which is a "repository" of cases, law (updated to the latest revisions) etc. Even official court documents say "as seen in Nevo". They sometimes release tidbits of info to the common (unregistered) man, but searches etc are paywalled. There are other similar systems from other companies.
It seems that Nevo and co are slurping the material via a sliding-window (~7 days back) doc-dump that the Court Management lets people access as long as they commit to removing cases that the Court Management tells them to remove.
There is one renegade (Tola'at Hamishpat, "court worm" https://xn----8hcborozt8bdd.xn--9dbq2a/) which is not using this doc-dump and instead scrapes the gov website. They're doing it to not be bound by the agreement for removing documents, which they say they'll only do if they get forwarded a court order that the case is now classified. This is because the Court Management, which is not populated by judges but rather admin people, sometimes instructs removal of cases too freely (without a court order), which clouds the principle of public availability according to the Tola'at operators.
There are other sites which purport to allow free access to cases, but they're usually low-level scrapers and don't allow a full-enough view.
As an "information wants to be free" person, I find this entire saga fascinating.
I actually approve of the something closer to the status quo here. Court filings contain a lot of sensitive information about the litigants.
It is one thing for the records to be publicly available, as they must be. It is a very different thing for every speck of material in them to be instantly available to anyone, anywhere, worldwide, for any purpose.
EMIRELADERO 3 days ago [-]
Material that shouldn't be published for any reason is already subject to a sealing process. What else is needed?
anon373839 3 days ago [-]
Just one example: PII of third parties is frequently attached in evidence supporting motions. In theory, careful redaction should be done, but it isn't, and those third parties aren't around to assert their privacy interests.
p_j_w 3 days ago [-]
So wealthy people can go ahead and violate your privacy interests, but not really anyone else? I’m sorry, but this is a bad answer to the problem. The solution is to fix the redaction process, not to go with some awkward indirect solution that creates its own set of problems WITHOUT solving the original stated problem.
3 days ago [-]
tptacek 3 days ago [-]
That's orthogonal to PACER fees. There's already a system in place for redacting and sealing documents that aren't suitable for public consumption. To a first approximation, ~everything on PACER is available to anybody, for free, because the billing threshold (before which there's no charge) is pretty high.
monooso 3 days ago [-]
Isn't that basically the same as saying court filings should be available, but not to poor people?
anon373839 3 days ago [-]
No. Indigent users can already request fee exemptions, and that can be expanded. Access can be provided at courthouses and public libraries. (I don’t know if that is already a practice for PACER specifically, but it should be.)
calebio 3 days ago [-]
You can easily burn through hundreds of dollars researching one or two relatively small court cases. I don't think you should be indigent or go to the courthouse/public library to avoid spending hundreds of dollars for that small amount of research.
DangitBobby 3 days ago [-]
There's "can't afford" and "can't justify the expense". I'm certainly not poor and at basically no amount above free would I justify the expense. So any cost is completely unacceptable, especially given how much the public pays to produce these results. No more excuses, no more lame justifications, no more hiding.
mjd 3 days ago [-]
PACER fees are waived if they are under $15 per quarter.
That's about 150 pages of material.
BenjiWiebe 3 days ago [-]
$30/quarter, so ~300 pages. Also noticed that the fee is capped at $3/document, but I don't know how often a single document is longer then 30 pages.
mjd 3 days ago [-]
Thanks, I think they raised the limit in the last few years and I forgot.
I have definitely gone over the limit for single documents in the past, although I've never been over the quarterly waiver limit. Judicial opinions and hearing trancripts often exceed 30 pages.
IncandescentGas 3 days ago [-]
No. They should be available for legit use cases and not available for data scrapers who will use it to facilitate algorithmic housing and employment discrimination. Especially not available for scammers who make mugshot extortion websites.
bsder 3 days ago [-]
Agreed. The issue isn't with individuals having access to the data but with aggregation of said data.
carlosjobim 3 days ago [-]
In these cases a heavily redacted sentence is made public, and it is common in sensitive cases to keep the names of victims and/or witnesses concealed. Think crimes involving children and such.
cindyllm 3 days ago [-]
[dead]
nonethewiser 3 days ago [-]
Then why do you think they should be public?
cogman10 3 days ago [-]
I think it should be public to be a general check the public can engage with against judges, cops, and court participants.
Consider cases like Cash for Kids. It potentially could have been caught a lot quicker if we had the data publicly available to see "How does this judge usually rule". Today, proving that a judge has is bias is pretty hard, but imagine if we could see "This judge always denies motions when the claimant or their lawyers are Irish".
Or consider dirty cops. Imagine being able to search all the drug arrests of a cop and finding out "Hmm, this cop is finding meth on everyone he pulls over". That's a valuable tool for the next victim of the cop that gets accused of meth possession. As it currently stands, we basically rely on the cop not forgetting to cover their cameras.
Having more data available makes it easier systematic analysis and mining a whole lot easier.
anon373839 3 days ago [-]
Because “publicly available with some friction” has a fundamentally different character than “indexed on Google/available to AI scrapers”. That type of information access wasn't even fathomable when the concept of public records was born. It enables a lot of uses where I would argue that the harms outweigh the benefits.
So, for many countries, it's not just that sealed documents are not accessible, many people in traditional democracies couldn't imagine and bear this level of publicity for every court document like you have in the US.
runako 3 days ago [-]
> indexed on Google/available to AI scrapers
Any fee that is acceptable for "normal use" is not high enough to deter the likes of Google or the big AI developers.
Google, a company that custom develops specialized automobiles to regularly drive ~all the streets in the world for the purposes of having imagery for a mapping app. Google, a company that (before it even got really rich), developed custom book-scanning technology to scan all the books it could acquire.
The big AI providers are in litigation now because even licensing terms that prevent use are no deterrent, they just stole the content they wanted to train their models.
The fee won't deter the cases you want, it will only harm the rest of us.
jasonfarnon 3 days ago [-]
"Because “publicly available with some friction” has a fundamentally different character than “indexed on Google/available to AI scrapers”"
people have already forgotten the lessons of all those mugshots websites.
fellowniusmonk 3 days ago [-]
Yeah, I think this is a bad take on the part of the EFF.
The full dataset will be in private hands and available everywhere to everyone to do anything the moment this goes live.
I protect data for a living, cost asymmetry and proof of work are really the only tools we have.
If this goes live, the next time I get subpoenaed to testify for something I'm going to throw in so many random but couched accusations at people just to screw them over when the data goes live at scale via data brokers and torrent dumps.
Bill Jones (accused in court testimony of killing puppies) is requesting the HOA get off of his back.
Zak 3 days ago [-]
I see a valid point here, however, some court rulings create binding precedents. As I understand it, those can be paywalled in PACER. Binding precedents are part of the law everyone within the relevant jurisdiction is required to obey, and it is unjust for any part of the law to not be freely available.
It may be reasonable to put limits on free public access to records where there's a privacy concern.
eurleif 3 days ago [-]
At least within the federal court system, binding precedent is already freely available. Only circuit courts and SCOTUS can create binding precedent, and the opinions of those courts are freely available on their respective sites, outside of PACER. E.g., here's the 9th circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/decisions/opinions/
Zak 3 days ago [-]
That's good to know. I did not know circuit court opinions were always available.
The current system still doesn't sit right with me. Someone sufficiently wealthy has effectively unlimited access. Someone sufficiently poor with a lot of time on their hands might also have unlimited access. Everyone in the middle has a bottleneck.
alexpotato 3 days ago [-]
So interesting point about things being public vs not:
If congressional votes are private, you never REALLY know if your congressperson is actually voting in your best interests. You only see certain bills pass and if they are in your favor, you can probably make some assumptions if they voted or not.
If the votes are public, now EVERYONE can see who they voted for. That sounds great! Then you realize that lobbyists can also see who the congressperson voted for. Lobbyists that have a lot more money and influence than you do. Lobbyists that can hold back millions if the vote is against their interests.
My point isn't that one format isn't better than the other. My point is that there are "no solutions, only tradeoffs"
markhahn 3 days ago [-]
what's the problem with everyone knowing how a rep votes? their voting should be a matter of record, not any form of leverage. the dumpsterfire of campaign finance is completely orthogonal (and also both important and simple to solve).
fogof 3 days ago [-]
Do you think there is a tradeoff in this case? If so, what is the best counterargument against making PACER records free? I think it's important to note, as the article does, that these records are already "public" (that's what the "P" stands for) what's at issue is whether you should be charged a fee to access them.
In the municipality where I live, we're statutorily required to replace lead service lines[†] within the next 5-10 years (I forget how many). The municipality replaces the trunk lines, and homeowners are required to replace the last hop at their own (significant) expense.
Naturally, people are extremely upset about this. They're all being forced to spend a bunch of money, out of the blue. They all want the municipality to pay for their own service line replacement. Other municipalities are doing this.
But the thing here is: there's no free money. We all pay for the service line replacement one way or the other, because the ultimate source of funds for the things the municipality pays for is our property tax levy. In fact, having the municipality pay for homeowner service line replacement is straightforwardly regressive: it's a subsidy to homeowners, paid in part out of the pockets of people who don't own.
A similar dilemma faces PACER. Overwhelmingly, PACER is used by attorneys, who are generally well-compensated professionals with a whole host of protectionist policies insulating them from market forces. Court records can, of course, be made "free". But nothing is actually free. To make those records free, you have to take money from the general fund, which means the tax payments of people who have nothing to do with the legal profession are... funding the legal profession.
That doesn't mean I think it's great that PACER charges. Speaking as a nonlawyer who uses PACER kind of weirdly a lot, it's also not good; it's pretty archaic. But it's also very cheap. I'd imagine that most of the use cases for which it isn't below the cost noise floor are cases that serve professions, in which case I have to ask what the public policy case is for subsidizing those uses.
I don't know, things are complicated.
[†] Added context: lead service lines in Chicagoland aren't necessarily immediately problematic, because the water management department here carefully manages the supply to ensure lead is mineralized; if you test your lead-service tap water for lead, you won't find any.
The municipality could service all the homes and pay for it with taxes, probably using their own people or a negotiated contract.
The private (and usually no -savvy) individual has much less negotiating power and is going to get taken to the cleaners by a plumber. Three houses in a street are likely to have 3 different plumbers on 3 different dates.
It’s just like that the cost per square foot to pave a single driveway vs the entire sidewalk or foundations for a whole neighborhood.
The prerequisite here, however, is that it's actually a competitive market. Two suppliers colluding or mirroring each other doesn't count.
If this were the government telling everyone to buy landscaping services or something else that's not intentionally supply constrained by the government to benefit incumbent you'd have an argument.
Extreme case is south africa, blackout 30% of time, and people are not allowed local solars (it makes goverment look bad).
> no matter how much effort the client site makes
I doubt solar provides stable predictable current 24/7 with warranty amd penalties. That is the hard part, and what it takes to be "high quality".
State sized grid is not a joke.
agree, state grid is no joke
People sometimes try to measure things like "overhead" but that also doesn't really work. If one entity pays $10M in claims but half of them are unknowingly fraudulent and another spends $1M to prevent the fraud, the first one is paying $10M with 0% overhead for fraud detection while the other is paying $5M with 20% overhead for fraud detection. Comparing the percentages implies the second one has "higher overhead" but it's also the one paying $6M instead of $10M.
And the same thing bleeds into the prices for specific services. A provider will happily give you a "20% discount" on the price if you don't bother to check that half their claims are fake. Then you're actually paying them 60% more while the books show them charging you 20% less per procedure.
On top of that, the market for many medical services in the US is extremely captured. The majority of states still have Certificate of Need laws, which are literally laws prohibiting new providers from entering the market if the local government (i.e. the incumbents) think the result would be "too much" competition. The AMA consistently lobbies to limit the number of medical residency slots and sustain a doctor shortage, and doctors who immigrate from other countries, even licensed physicians in countries with first rate healthcare and medical education systems, can't practice in the US without doing a US residency, which in turn consumes one of the residency slots and prevents immigration from alleviating the shortage whatsoever.
The premise is that competitive markets result in lower prices, not that uncompetitive markets do.
Anyway, I think parent comment to yours is using single-payer in the sense that implies universal healthcare [2].
[1] https://www.kff.org/medicare/how-medicare-pays-medicare-adva...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-payer_healthcare
The first is that it doesn't actually get you out of the monopoly. If there is an uncompetitive market and you're required by law (or otherwise compelled) to purchase their services, making the buyer a monopsony still doesn't give them any leverage because they have to contract for the services even if the provider won't lower the price, and the provider knows that.
The second is that the purchasing bureaucracy then becomes a target for capture and has all the wrong incentives to resist it. They control a trillion dollars in purchasing power but it's really about a million providers getting an average of a million dollars each. That's the recipe for doing something inefficient a million times over because every provider wants to get $2M instead of $500k and will lobby for regulations or offer kickbacks or commit fraud to get it, and the public doesn't have the bandwidth to apprehend a million individual cases of things going crooked when each one is only 0.0001% of the total. And meanwhile "a million providers" still doesn't imply there is real competition to get you out of (1), because a radiology lab in Philadelphia isn't a substitute for a neurologist in Denver or vice versa.
The third is that you still don't have any sensible pricing mechanism. Even if you have a monopsony, how do they come up with a price to offer? Dart board? Demanding to look at the supplier's accounts, thereby giving the supplier an incentive to waste money because they're getting cost plus? The only real way to give them the incentive to do it for less if they can is to have alternate suppliers so that they each lose the contract if they don't offer the best price, but not having that was the original problem that "collective bargaining" was supposed to address.
Whereas if you instead focus on sustaining a competitive market then "collective bargaining" is just wasteful overhead, because the competition is already keeping margins thin so there is little more to extract from the supplier and you're only unnecessarily subjecting yourself to a layer of indirection and the principal-agent problem.
1) You get elected by convincing voters to vote for you. Which is not the same as actually getting the lowest prices.
2) Core competency has been stamped out of a lot of government agencies and so if you're a skill negotiator you want to be collecting the commission from the sales contract to the government as opposed to a low salary from being the government agent.
So at the end of the day, making all these contracts public wouldn't fix future ones from being issued. Although I'm still for more sunshine.
For example, journalists. There's enormous investigative journalism value in the documents that have been filed in court. People say all sorts of shit in affidavits which turns out to be relevant outside the context they intended it for. PACER should be free, if nothing else than for the public interest value of its content (outside as well as inside the court).
Making PACER entirely free is regressive, absent some new scheme to single out the lawyers (like a dedicated lawyer tax or something, which runs into constitutional problems.)
Couldn't you just add a "are you a lawyer" checkbox, and only charge a fee if you check it? It would be trivial to lie here, but I doubt that many lawyers would want to risk getting caught defrauding the government when doing so would only save them a few thousand dollars a year.
PACER is more or less journalists, activists, and so forth.
The fees PACER charges doesn't reflect the cost that the government bears to make it available (it's much higher). It's a poor service, seemingly designed to discourage its own use. And the bureaucracy within the court system obligated to provide it seems to feel that it's far more than a burden but even an intrusion into matters that the courts would keep from the public, were it allowed.
I don't know about that; I've used PACER a fair amount, despite also using Westlaw.
So I'm not familiar with this area at all, but aren't only the major rulings annotated? Based off of this sibling comment [0] (which I have no idea is correct or not), PACER is mainly used for exhibits, briefs, and motions, and I wouldn't expect for LexisNexis and Westlaw to annotate these.
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48605601
I mean, maybe the right answer is just to make the whole thing free. I don't know. I just know it's more complicated than the standard message board discourse suggests.
but 1) it has high revenue which 2) is required to go to expenses, which 3) it may not be going to expenses
(per freelaw project, at least https://free.law/2016/11/14/pacer-revenue/)
courtlistener is providing a much better service at no cost to the public through donations; it's reasonable to say 'govt is required to feed new data to courtlistener and friends', gov doesn't have to operate pacer anymore, everyone is happy
> I'm the director of Free Law Project. For the case mentioned in the article we actually did a full expert testimony figuring out roughly how much per page it'd cost to run PACER using AWS GovCloud and a handful of other assumptions. It was...half a ten thousandth of a penny per page, IIRC:
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4214664/52/15/national-...
Government’s PACER Fees Are Too High, Federal Circuit Says - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24085158 - August 2020 (149 comments)
> The judiciary opposes measures that shift the costs of providing access to PACER to litigants filing cases in federal courts, unduly hindering access to justice
That's their response to the open courts act of 2021, which would have made pacer free.
As a user of both courtlistener and pacer, I mostly believe freelaw can deliver a better cheaper equivalent than what exists, even including the submission systems. (With the caveat that I have used state court e-file systems but only briefly touched the federal ones).
If pacer revenue is paying the filing clerks, I probably feel differently; clerks are necessary components of the system who cannot be replaced by technology today.
* Sports gambling excise tax: https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employe...
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_telephone_excise_tax
* Indoor tanning services: https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employe...
WestLaw is expressive. It's tricky to do targeted taxes on expressive organizations. Pesky First Amendment.
The big reason nothing like this is going to happen is that there are like 40 nerds in the country that care about it, and then a huge majority of the population that is reasonably well served by the current compromise.
You would really enjoy reading Chief Justice Roberts' end of 2023 State of the US Federal Courts paper [†][ <6 pages ]. He discusses how their system has always been antiquated, resistant to change... but how significantly LLMs are going to change commoners' (like us!) access to the judicial system.
There are also many humorous musings about past Justices' hatred of new technology, and that ~"if some former Justices could they'd have gotten rid of most associates, too; but they were still technologically necessary"~.
[†] <https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/year-end/2023year-en...>
----
My own forty-something brother is currently a state-level judge, and he still uses a typewriter, by choice, for more-privileged correspondence.
State of our times, l-onestar.
One of those protectionist policies is charging for PACER itself.
The costs of running PACER are absolutely trivial in comparison to the costs of running the judiciary. To the point that even bringing the point up is disingenuous to the point that it discredits everything else you say.
Case law is law. People are required to obey the law. They should be able to access the law so they can know how to follow it. It's that simple.
Yes everything costs money. But we expect that the government would provide services for the greater good of its citizens.
I can step foot in some of the greatest museums in the world for free in downtown dc. As a citizen I can get (and have) a reading card for the Library of Congress. For free. Are these services being provided by volunteers? No. My tax dollars pay for it. So should it fund electronic record keeping for legal proceedings.
I think we're close to a pretty nice balance in the status quo: RECAP, and a free tier. If it's me, what you do is jack the free tier up from $30 to $1000.
You’d better believe that cost, however small, is passed along to the clients of those law firms.
Now if that cost were to go to zero- no I don’t think the lawyers will charge less. But I do think that even the presence of a paywall reinforces the perceived scarcity of the legal profession. My thought is that if these documents were available more freely, we would see more democratization of the legal system.
For example, small claims doesn’t require legal representation. But knowing previous case law could definitely help even a lay person prepare a case.
This line of reasoning devolves into pure power politics. If we assume costs would always be passed down, all public taxation policy will always land at the feet of the hungry, the only people who are unable to pass on the cost. For any taxation or redistribution policy to make sense, we must agree that some amount of the cost will manifest as lower demand or slimmer margins. Some of the cost must be born by the law firm.
> My thought is that if these documents were available more freely, we would see more democratization of the legal system.
Does that actually make sense? My understanding of the legal profession and the game theory around it, is that it's a supply side constrained system. If you're being charged, and might go to jail should you fail to defend yourself, you're going to hire the absolutely most expensive lawyer you can get your hands on. It doesn't really matter if you could defend yourself, it's just not worth the risk.
I gave the example of museums and libraries which I assume we all agree are public goods and worth funding with tax dollars. In your example with criminal justice, we fund public defenders as well.
Knowledge as a whole is a supply side constrained system (maybe changing with llms??). As we have experienced, parents are more than willing to pay any price to send their kids to the most expensive (exclusive) college they can afford, to include going into debt. Yet we still find it useful as a society to fund public school and libraries so we can democratize knowledge to those with the interest to do so.
I think it’s been quite obvious for the past twenty years that any additional cost ultimately is passed to the customer. In the early 2000s the “fuel surcharges” started slipping in. Then telco companies started adding on fees for any compliance regime they were subject to. And so on it goes.
Free PACER access might actually help average people get better legal representation by reducing the cost burden on the small independent attorneys who don’t mingle with execs and politicians at the country club.
Which is what we arguably have already considering the state of public defenders, jail, bail system, and how often the rich get off scot free for their crimes.
In 2026, this is similar to having secret laws, as your LLM might not have a subscription or know to tell you to get one
Fiscally? Sure. In terms of liberty? Absolutely not. We are talking about public access to law, which is foundational to a free society.
Federal courts are not strictly limited by tax revenue in the same way that state courts are, and I am more sympathetic to this line of argument on the state level. Finding replacement revenue is a legitimate concern, but a secondary one due to the federal government's deficit spending privilege.
This trilemma shows up whenever we try to meter public goods in this fashion. We could, in theory, price public transit or water or what-have-you by evaluating willingness to pay and charging each person that value. However, in practice the invasive monitoring necessary to do so is an enormous burden. We can sort of spread this out with municipal services by (as you noted) replacing trunk lines/pipes with a general fund and asking individuals to pay for the last mile, but that mostly works because the real marginal cost is measurable and not near 0. Further, for utilities, the willingness to pay has good proxies: the end of the last mile is at a real house that isn’t going anywhere. For PACER I doubt that’s the case.
Buuuut, that doesn't accomplish the secondary goal of incentivizing the departure of black grandma who has crappy landscaping or car part out guy or whoever else owns their own house and won't be kicked by rent but whose means and standard of living are below the vision of some snooty Chicago suburb. There's always that undertone to these sorts of things.
And if it's not that there's some local business connections that are angling for things to be structured a given way. The dirt work guy with a cousin on the board would much rather see the town force people to incur thousands of $5k jobs that he'll surely get a cut of rather than have to bid a single contract with the same or less profit that he will not necessarily win.
PACER (mostly, of course they don't want to give the public a tour of the sausage factory) isn't juggling 2nd and 3rd tier goals that are so objectionable they can't be talked about like your municipality is.
And frankly I think PACER should be free specifically to enable bulk access so that all sorts of parties can sift through it, present the data, fact check against it, perform meta analysis, etc, etc.
So yeah, I think that cost should be split among the entire municipality.
I find it interesting that you have such a libertarian viewpoint on the one... But not the other. Is this not a direct government monopoly?
Which is a major difference between that and PACER, since they're serving text and the marginal cost of more people having access to it is essentially zero.
If you make the homeowners pay for the service line replacement, the number of service lines that will be replaced is the same. If you make the public pay for access to the law, this happens:
> Overwhelmingly, PACER is used by attorneys, who are generally well-compensated professionals with a whole host of protectionist policies insulating them from market forces.
...because everyone else is priced out by the fees, or even just the friction of having to configure payments for someone who is only going to use it infrequently. Which means the general public loses out on having access to something it would have a negligible marginal cost to give them.
Imagine, for example, an open source project to search or otherwise process court opinions, which then needs access to all of them. If the government is charging per page, that's completely infeasible. If there is a public torrent of all the opinions, people get to do interesting things they currently can't. And this is not just public information but legal precedent that everyone is expected to comply with -- and yet is being charged to even read it.
Also, this isn't right even for the service lines:
> In fact, having the municipality pay for homeowner service line replacement is straightforwardly regressive: it's a subsidy to homeowners, paid in part out of the pockets of people who don't own.
As a minor point, municipalities get their revenue predominantly from property tax, which is collected from property owners.
The main issue is that the outlay is a fixed cost. The cost of replacing the service line will generally be similar for a $200k house as for a $2M house. Meanwhile taxes are collected in proportion to property value or income. If you tax everyone by even a flat X percent in order to give everyone a flat Y dollar amount benefit, the result is a progressive effective rate curve, because everyone gets e.g. a $10,000 benefit but a lower income person is paying $2500 in tax while a higher income person is paying $25,000, making the lower income person's net transfers to the government not just low but negative.
This goes back to Hammurabi. These decisions are the law. We pay tax dollars to create all this and even if we didn’t, if we’re held to these rulings we need to be able to read them.
Someone got sued for copyright infringement for giving away a copy of the statues, but they ultimately won.
See e.g., Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc. (2020) & Veeck v. Southern Building Code Congress Int'l (5th Cir. 2002).
I'm being sued in the State of Idaho, where the price of each page is $10.
Recap takes any PACER document you purchase and automatically adds it to CourtListener for others to see/download.
Hopefully it will become obsolete soon!
I think RECAP rules a lot and I have the plugins enabled in the browser session I use to read PACER. I'm just saying, it's not really a liberation of all of PACER.
https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/04/06/things-you-should-...
https://courtwatch.us/
They're publicly available in a byzantine system maintained by the Court Management, a governmental entity (Net Hamishpat, "court net" - slightly deviating from Beit Hamishpat meaning "the court", https://www.court.gov.il/NGCS.Web.Site/HomePage.aspx), but it is not where cases and material are referenced from in the public sphere or legal docs.
Most professionals subscribe to Nevo (https://www.nevo.co.il/), which is a "repository" of cases, law (updated to the latest revisions) etc. Even official court documents say "as seen in Nevo". They sometimes release tidbits of info to the common (unregistered) man, but searches etc are paywalled. There are other similar systems from other companies.
It seems that Nevo and co are slurping the material via a sliding-window (~7 days back) doc-dump that the Court Management lets people access as long as they commit to removing cases that the Court Management tells them to remove.
There is one renegade (Tola'at Hamishpat, "court worm" https://xn----8hcborozt8bdd.xn--9dbq2a/) which is not using this doc-dump and instead scrapes the gov website. They're doing it to not be bound by the agreement for removing documents, which they say they'll only do if they get forwarded a court order that the case is now classified. This is because the Court Management, which is not populated by judges but rather admin people, sometimes instructs removal of cases too freely (without a court order), which clouds the principle of public availability according to the Tola'at operators.
There are other sites which purport to allow free access to cases, but they're usually low-level scrapers and don't allow a full-enough view.
As an "information wants to be free" person, I find this entire saga fascinating.
Article about Tola'at people (Hebrew): https://www.themarker.com/weekend/2025-12-26/ty-article-maga...
It is one thing for the records to be publicly available, as they must be. It is a very different thing for every speck of material in them to be instantly available to anyone, anywhere, worldwide, for any purpose.
That's about 150 pages of material.
I have definitely gone over the limit for single documents in the past, although I've never been over the quarterly waiver limit. Judicial opinions and hearing trancripts often exceed 30 pages.
Consider cases like Cash for Kids. It potentially could have been caught a lot quicker if we had the data publicly available to see "How does this judge usually rule". Today, proving that a judge has is bias is pretty hard, but imagine if we could see "This judge always denies motions when the claimant or their lawyers are Irish".
Or consider dirty cops. Imagine being able to search all the drug arrests of a cop and finding out "Hmm, this cop is finding meth on everyone he pulls over". That's a valuable tool for the next victim of the cop that gets accused of meth possession. As it currently stands, we basically rely on the cop not forgetting to cover their cameras.
Having more data available makes it easier systematic analysis and mining a whole lot easier.
And for non-common law jurisdictions, even the UK level of publicity of judgments is rarely available - anonymisation is a prerequisite: https://homoki.net/en/2024/02/01/On_Anonymisation_of_court_d...
So, for many countries, it's not just that sealed documents are not accessible, many people in traditional democracies couldn't imagine and bear this level of publicity for every court document like you have in the US.
Any fee that is acceptable for "normal use" is not high enough to deter the likes of Google or the big AI developers.
Google, a company that custom develops specialized automobiles to regularly drive ~all the streets in the world for the purposes of having imagery for a mapping app. Google, a company that (before it even got really rich), developed custom book-scanning technology to scan all the books it could acquire.
The big AI providers are in litigation now because even licensing terms that prevent use are no deterrent, they just stole the content they wanted to train their models.
The fee won't deter the cases you want, it will only harm the rest of us.
people have already forgotten the lessons of all those mugshots websites.
The full dataset will be in private hands and available everywhere to everyone to do anything the moment this goes live.
I protect data for a living, cost asymmetry and proof of work are really the only tools we have.
If this goes live, the next time I get subpoenaed to testify for something I'm going to throw in so many random but couched accusations at people just to screw them over when the data goes live at scale via data brokers and torrent dumps.
Bill Jones (accused in court testimony of killing puppies) is requesting the HOA get off of his back.
It may be reasonable to put limits on free public access to records where there's a privacy concern.
The current system still doesn't sit right with me. Someone sufficiently wealthy has effectively unlimited access. Someone sufficiently poor with a lot of time on their hands might also have unlimited access. Everyone in the middle has a bottleneck.
If congressional votes are private, you never REALLY know if your congressperson is actually voting in your best interests. You only see certain bills pass and if they are in your favor, you can probably make some assumptions if they voted or not.
If the votes are public, now EVERYONE can see who they voted for. That sounds great! Then you realize that lobbyists can also see who the congressperson voted for. Lobbyists that have a lot more money and influence than you do. Lobbyists that can hold back millions if the vote is against their interests.
My point isn't that one format isn't better than the other. My point is that there are "no solutions, only tradeoffs"