Open Courts Public Records System

Full Title:
Open Courts Act of 2026

Summary#

This bill, called the Open Courts Act of 2026, would create a single, modern public system for electronic federal court records. It directs the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AO) to build and run a centralized system with search, bulk access, and an API, and sets rules for data formats, accessibility, security, and public notice. The bill also sets fees and other funding rules to pay for building and running the system.

Key changes:

  • Consolidation: AO must develop, deliver, operate, and sustain a centralized public system for records from most federal courts (some courts like the Supreme Court and certain national security and immigration courts are excluded).
  • Public access: Covered court filings, dockets, orders, opinions, and audio recordings must be made publicly available automatically when filed (or after unsealing).
  • Technical standards: The system must support search, bulk access, APIs, machine-readable citations, open-source-friendly code, accessibility rules, and specific data standards.
  • Timeline: AO must produce the system within 5 years of enactment, or 6 years if AO certifies it needs more time.
  • Funding: Short-term extra fees on non-government high-volume users will help pay for development; long-term funding comes from fees charged to federal agencies and, if needed, a Judicial Conference plan to set graduated filing fees.
  • Oversight and security: The GAO will review and audit development and the system must meet executive-branch cybersecurity standards unless AO grants a waiver under set conditions.

What it means for you#

  • Members of the public / researchers / journalists

    • You would likely be able to search and read most federal court dockets and filings on a single public website without registering or paying to access system functions.
    • The site must allow automated access (for example, by indexing tools) and provide permanent, predictable links to documents.
    • You could sign up for automatic notifications about new filings in cases or search results.

  • People who file in federal court (litigants, lawyers, pro se filers)

    • Most documents you file will become publicly available immediately upon filing unless sealed.
    • Courts and filers will use new data formats and machine-readable citations designed to make documents easier to find and reuse.
    • There is a possible future for graduated filing fees if agency fees do not cover system costs. The bill says courts cannot deny access for inability to pay and some low-income filers are protected.

  • High-volume users (commercial companies, academic data services)

    • Non-government users who incur $25,000 or more in access fees in a quarter, or who use bulk-access tools, may face additional short-term development fees set by the Judicial Conference.
    • The system is required to support bulk access and APIs, but additional fees for very large users are explicitly authorized to fund development.

  • Federal agencies

    • Agencies will pay an annual fee equal to the PACER-like fees they paid in the previous full fiscal year (adjusted for inflation) to help operate the system.

  • Federal courts and court staff

    • Courts defined as “covered courts” must adopt the system’s data standards and provide their records into the new centralized system under AO direction.
    • There will be technical, training, and administrative work to meet the new standards and accessibility requirements.

  • Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AO)

    • AO must design and run the system, set data standards, consult on security, publish fee schedules as needed, and report to Congress and the GAO.

Expenses#

No publicly available overall cost estimate is included in the bill text.

Known funding and cost items in the bill:

  • Short-term: AO/Judicial Conference may set additional fees for non-government users who incur $25,000+ in access fees in any quarter or who use bulk-access functions. Those fees are to be deposited to the Judiciary Information Technology Fund to help fund development.
  • Long-term: Federal agencies must pay annual fees equal to the access fees they paid in the prior full fiscal year (adjusted for inflation). Those collections are intended to offset the system’s annual operating and maintenance costs.
  • If agency fees are not enough, the Judicial Conference may set graduated filing fees. The bill requires public notice and allows waivers or exemptions for low-income filers.
  • All fees collected for these purposes must go to the Judiciary Information Technology Fund and may be used only for the system or for covered public access programs.
  • If the fund has more than $50 million unspent at the end of a fiscal year, excess funds must be transferred to the Treasury and the fee schedule reviewed.
  • The bill allows the General Services Administration to provide reimbursable technical or administrative services to AO.
  • Administrative, staffing, vendor, and IT costs are implied by the development, maintenance, audits, and security requirements, but the bill does not give dollar amounts.

Proponents' View#

The bill appears intended to:

  • Modernize and centralize access to federal court records to make the courts more transparent and easier to understand.
  • Provide full search, bulk access, and developer-friendly APIs so researchers, media, and the public can use court data more effectively.
  • Improve data quality, portability, and long-term availability by setting data and technical standards and machine-readable citations.
  • Make online access accessible to people with disabilities and mobile-friendly.
  • Fund the system with fees targeted at large users and federal agencies, rather than charging basic public access fees.
  • Increase oversight and accountability through regular GAO reviews and audits.

Opponents' View#

Possible concerns and trade-offs the bill raises:

  • The bill authorizes new fees on high-volume non-government users and on federal agencies. It also allows the Judicial Conference to create new filing fees if agency fees fall short. This could shift costs to certain users and may raise questions about who ultimately bears ongoing costs.
  • The bill does not include a public fiscal estimate or specific dollar amounts for development, operations, or long-term maintenance. The total cost and pace of implementation are therefore unclear.
  • Although access is broadly required, the bill allows for sealing and redaction where lawfully required. How privacy, sensitive data, and sealed materials are handled in practice is not detailed.
  • The cybersecurity rules adopt executive-branch standards but permit the AO to grant waivers in some cases. This could raise questions about consistent security protections versus judicial branch operational needs.
  • The implementation timeline (five years, possibly six) is long and may create transition challenges for courts, users, and vendors.
  • Allowing reuse of code and encouraging open-source approaches may raise contract and intellectual property complications for existing vendor agreements; the bill notes this should be considered but does not resolve those details.