FOLLOW US

WHAT'S INSIDE THIS REPORT

• Senators John Kennedy and Ron Wyden have reintroduced the Open Courts Act of 2026, a bipartisan effort to eliminate PACER fees and provide free public access to federal court records.
• The legislation would fundamentally restructure how federal court records are managed, centralizing PACER and CM/ECF into a modernized platform while reducing operating costs and strengthening cybersecurity.
• If enacted, the bill could become one of the most significant judicial transparency reforms in decades, affecting litigants, journalists, researchers, businesses, and taxpayers nationwide.

By Samuel López | USA Herald

For decades, Americans have been told that court records belong to the public. Yet anyone attempting to access many federal court filings quickly discovers a different reality: public records often come with a price tag.

That reality may soon face its most serious challenge yet.

In a renewed bipartisan push for judicial transparency, Senators John Kennedy (R-La.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) have reintroduced the Open Courts Act of 2026, legislation designed to eliminate user fees for the federal judiciary's Public Access to Court Electronic Records system, better known as PACER.

The proposal seeks to overhaul not only PACER but also the federal judiciary's Case Management/Electronic Case Files platform, commonly known as CM/ECF. Under the bill, both systems would be consolidated into a single modernized platform intended to provide free public access to federal court records while strengthening cybersecurity protections and reducing long-term operating costs.

The issue has been a source of controversy for years.

PACER was created in the late 1980s and became available online in 2001. Although the records it contains are public judicial documents, users are generally charged fees to access filings, transcripts, pleadings, motions, and other court records. Critics have long argued that charging citizens to view public court documents creates an unnecessary barrier to transparency, legal research, journalism, academic study, and public oversight of the judiciary.

The debate extends beyond convenience. At its core is a fundamental question about government accountability.

Federal courts exercise some of the most consequential powers in American society. They resolve constitutional disputes, oversee major corporate bankruptcies, adjudicate civil rights claims, and interpret federal law. When public access to those proceedings is conditioned on payment, critics argue that transparency becomes less accessible to ordinary citizens while remaining readily available to large institutions with significant resources.

Kennedy described the legislation as a way to simplify access while modernizing aging technology. Wyden emphasized the financial component, stating that the legislation could save taxpayers more than $60 million annually while removing what he characterized as burdensome paywalls.

The funding structure may prove critical to the bill's political viability.

Rather than relying on annual congressional appropriations, the proposal would finance the new system through court filing fees and a standardized annual assessment collected from government agencies by the U.S. Judicial Conference. Supporters argue that this approach would provide predictable funding while avoiding future budget battles that could delay modernization efforts.

The legislation also arrives against a backdrop of growing cybersecurity concerns throughout government. Federal courts increasingly store sensitive filings containing proprietary business information, personal data, and matters affecting national interests. Consolidating outdated systems into a centralized platform could potentially reduce cybersecurity vulnerabilities while improving operational efficiency.

The proposal is not entirely new territory.

A similar version of the Open Courts Act advanced significantly in 2020. That legislation passed the House of Representatives and moved through the Senate Judiciary Committee but ultimately failed to receive a full Senate vote before the legislative session expired. Supporters hope the renewed bipartisan sponsorship will increase its chances this time.

For lawyers, journalists, researchers, watchdog organizations, and self-represented litigants, the stakes are substantial. Easier access to court records could reduce research costs, improve public oversight, and lower barriers for individuals attempting to understand or participate in the federal judicial system.

The bill's future remains uncertain, and Congress has no shortage of competing priorities. Yet the proposal raises a larger question that reaches beyond PACER itself: should citizens have to pay to inspect records generated by one of the three branches of government?

That question is likely to remain at the center of the debate as lawmakers consider what could become one of the most significant federal court transparency reforms in decades. If Congress succeeds where prior efforts failed, the result may not simply be a free PACER system—it could fundamentally redefine public access to the federal judiciary in the digital age.