APPENDIX 2 - ELECTRONIC PUBLIC ACCESS 

PROGRAM
Appendix 2.1

GENERAL STATEMENT AND INFORMATION

The Electronic Public Access (EPA) program provides electronic public access to court information in accordance with federal

statutes, judiciary policies, and user needs. The internet-based Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) service 

provides courts, litigants, and the public access to court dockets, case reports, and the more than one billion documents filed with 

the courts through the Case Management/Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) system. PACER is a portal to CM/ECF, making both 

systems integral to effective public access. In fiscal year (FY) 2022 alone, PACER processed nearly 551 million requests for case

information.

Currently, there are more than 4.1 million PACER user accounts; approximately 14 percent of all user accounts were active in 

FY 2022. In addition to court staff, users include members of the bar; city, state, and federal employees; private companies; nonprofit organizations; academic researchers; members of the media; and the general public. During FY 2022, the judiciary’s PACER 

Service Center established 287,778 new PACER accounts and responded to more than 287,000 telephone and email inquiries. 

Pursuant to statute, the EPA program is funded through user fees set by the Judicial Conference of the United States. Fees are 

deposited in a special account in the U.S. Treasury and are then used exclusively to fund the cost of the judiciary’s EPA program. 

The components of this program are listed in Table A-2.1 and include activities such as operations of the PACER Service Center; 

electronic bankruptcy noticing; the telecommunications, replication, archiving, development, and maintenance costs associated with 

the current CM/ECF systems and PACER services, as well as costs associated with the modernization of CM/ECF and PACER.

The judiciary continues to improve electronic public access to its records, with new initiatives to broaden public access, including:

• Conducting quarterly PACER User Assessments. In 2021, the judiciary conducted a comprehensive PACER User

Assessment to measure user satisfaction with PACER services and identify areas for improvement. The results of the 2021 

assessment show that 84 percent of users were satisfied with the PACER services offered and the value of the services for 

the fees charged. However, the assessment’s findings pointed to areas that could have a significant positive impact on user 

satisfaction, including improved search capabilities and greater awareness of available services. The results of the survey 

are being used to prioritize and inform improvements to public access services. As improvements are considered, the 

judiciary is seeking more focused input on a more frequent basis through quarterly user surveys. The results of these 
Appendix 2.2

surveys will be used to develop, enhance, and implement products and services designed to improve user satisfaction.

• Improving Search Functionality. To address one of the primary issues identified through the 2021 PACER User 

Assessment, the AO has undertaken a project, more fully described below in the Case Management/Electronic Case Files 

Modernization section, to greatly improve search functionality in PACER. The goal of this project is to provide a modern, 

intuitive, user-friendly search interface, allowing the user to easily search across the federal judiciary for publicly available 

court data, documents, and docket entries. The AO is preparing for the solicitation process, and this functionality will be 

transferrable to the modernized CM/ECF system in development. 

• Increasing Free Access to Court Records. To make court documents free for more users, the Judicial Conference approved 

an increase in the quarterly waiver threshold from $15.00 to $30.00, effective January 1, 2020. No fee is owed for electronic 

access to court data or audio files via PACER until an account holder accrues charges of more than $30.00 in a quarterly 

billing cycle. In FY 2022, approximately 81 percent of active PACER users accessed court records for free as a result of the 

fee waiver. Additionally, at its March 2022 session, the Judicial Conference endorsed making all searches free of charge for 

all non-commercial users of any future new modernized case management, electronic filing, and public access systems 

implemented by the judiciary. 

• Facilitating an Electronic Public Access Public User Group. In 2020, the AO established the first EPA Public User Group 

to collect advice and provide feedback on ways to improve PACER and related public access services. The group is 

composed of 12 non-judiciary members who represent the legal sector, media, academia, government agencies, and other 

entities that regularly use PACER. The EPA Public User Group conducted two teleconferences in FY 2022, concluding the 

membership term of the inaugural Group. The Group made several recommendations for improving public access services. 

The following recommendations have been executed: 

o Implemented enhanced Case Title and Party Name fields in the PACER Case Locator, allowing the public to search 

using one character in combination with a wildcard character. 

o Resolved issues with viewing PDFs on iPads (for District CM/ECF) in NextGen CM/ECF Release 1.7 in Fall 2021. 

o Added “coverage dates” available by court to the PACER Case Locator, providing the date range of cases that users 

can find when searching each court’s CM/ECF database. 
Appendix 2.3

o Released a Pro Se User page on PACER.gov, making it easier for the public to understand how to access and use 

PACER.

o Encouraged increased court use of Really Simple Syndication (RSS) feeds in CM/ECF through outreach to help 

courts overcome obstacles with, and raise awareness of the public access benefits of, using RSS feeds more fully.

These benefits include providing timely notifications about court filings to keep public subscribers apprised of case 

activity in various jurisdictions of interest.

In October 2022, the AO reconstituted the EPA Public User Group with 12 new members to serve a 2-year term, ending in 

2024. This Group’s first meeting was held in November 2022 via teleconference. The AO plans to engage these members in 

the development of requirements for the new PACER unified search functionality, referenced above and discussed more fully 

in the next section, and to examine additional ways to improve public access services.

SIGNIFICANT ISSUES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024

Case Management/Electronic Case Files Modernization

CM/ECF, first introduced in early 2001, revolutionized the way federal courts and the bar manage cases and documents. Far more 

than just a repository of documents, CM/ECF is the program that manages the operations of the federal courts. It manages documents, 

deadlines, hearing schedules, and trials. It handles the docketing for every federal court, and it processes transactions at every step 

along the way in the progression of a case, from collecting filing fees, to determining deadlines for motions, to sharing vital 

information among litigants, judges, and court staff.

In 2014, the judiciary began implementation of its first effort to update and improve CM/ECF through the Next Generation (NextGen) 

CM/ECF project. The first NextGen release was implemented in the Second and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals in the fall of 

2014. As of September 2022, all courts of appeals, district, bankruptcy, and national courts have implemented NextGen CM/ECF.

While significant improvements were made to CM/ECF over the past decade through the development and implementation of 

NextGen CM/ECF, the judiciary is committed to modernizing the system for the future. In 2021, the judiciary partnered with 18F, a 

government consultancy in the General Services Administration’s (GSA) Federal Acquisition Service, to assess the status of CM/ECF 

and to develop a path forward for modernizing the system. The purpose of the assessment was to conduct user-centric research, 
Appendix 2.4

identify user pain points, recommend improvements, and provide a roadmap for the judiciary to move forward. The partnership began 

with an initial path analysis phase (Phase One) and continued with an Experiment and Iterate phase (part of Phase Two).

In Phase One, 18F interviewed more than 100 participants in appellate, district, and bankruptcy courts across the country, including 

judges, court unit executives, court operational and IT staffs, and AO leadership and staff. 18F found that the current CM/ECF system 

is outdated, unsustainable, and requires replacement, and recommended that the judiciary build a modern case management system 

that will serve the judiciary’s needs and enhance public access to electronic court case records.

In Phase Two, 18F sought to gain a deeper understanding of CM/ECF user needs and to refine its recommendations for how the 

judiciary can move forward. 18F spoke with numerous judiciary and public stakeholders. It also explored potential first steps toward 

modernizing CM/ECF data architecture, aligning CM/ECF database schemas, and prototyping development, deployment, and 

operations workflows. The AO formed a cross-functional and cross-departmental team that has been working with 18F to assess how 

to incorporate security and operational concerns earlier in the software development process. An initial report on this Phase Two 

work was shared with the judiciary in October 2021.

During the latter half of its Phase Two work, 18F developed specific recommendations to the judiciary so that it can better position 

itself to engage in more modern software development, acquisition, and maintenance practices. The final report on this work was 

delivered to the judiciary in March 2022.

The Judiciary agrees with 18F’s assessment and recommendations, most notably a recommendation to replace the existing CM/ECF 

with a new, modernized system. While 18F recommended developing the new CM/ECF system from the ground up through opensource software, the AO believed it was also important to explore commercial off the shelf (COTS) products. Incorporating COTS 

products may allow the judiciary to implement a new case management and electronic case filing system much more quickly than if it 

built one from scratch. The AO engaged the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) to conduct this market research and analysis. 

There is likely no single product on the market that will meet all of the judiciary’s needs, so it is likely that the final solution will 

involve custom development work from the AO. But the hope is that COTS products could help accelerate a portion of the CM/ECF 

product by meeting much of the judiciary’s needs, and the rest can be customized, resulting in the final system that is a hybrid of a 

COTS product and custom solution.
Appendix 2.5

The AO is currently gathering market research and feedback from multiple sources, including user representatives, to inform our 

decisions about products and approach. The judiciary will consider all the reports produced by the market research effort as it 

proceeds toward a more modern case management and electronic filing system.

While the AO proceeds with the NCSC engagement, it is also moving forward with developing a unified search solution to replace the 

current PACER search feature. In March 2022, the AO released a Request for Information (RFI) on the GSA’s Contract Opportunities 

site (at SAM.gov) seeking input from the industry about COTS solutions that provide modern Google-type search capability and can 

be used to build the modern unified search solution. The industry responded positively to the RFI, and over 20 companies provided 

responses. The AO estimates that during 2023 vendors will be selected to begin prototyping and then developing a unified search 

product for public use. At a later stage, the unified search product will be incorporated into the modern CM/ECF product.

The CM/ECF modernization effort is currently being funded by EPA revenue, consistent with the judiciary’s historical approach to 

CM/ECF-related costs. Total project costs and schedules are still being determined, but, at this time, it is the expectation that fee 

revenue will continue to fund the modernization effort in future fiscal years. The judiciary will apprise the Congress as soon as 

possible if there is reason to believe that the historical funding model for CM/ECF will require adjustment in the future in order to 

adequately support CM/ECF modernization. 

Legislation Impacting PACER and the Case Management/Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) System

The 117th Congress reintroduced legislation to eliminate PACER fees while requiring a complete overhaul of the judiciary’s backbone 

case management and electronic filing system. The “Open Courts Act of 2021,” S. 2614 and H.R. 5844, directed the AO to 

consolidate CM/ECF into one unified system and, no later than three years after enactment, make all documents accessed through 

PACER available free of charge.

The Judicial Conference of the United States opposes legislation that would eliminate the judiciary’s statutory authority to charge user 

fees for access to the PACER system without providing a workable alternative funding mechanism to finance the programs funded by 

the current fees and for any related new requirements in the legislation.

The bill authorized the Judicial Conference to create a new schedule of filing fees to pay for the costs of establishing, operating, and 

maintaining the new consolidated court records system and for costs related to implementing the legislation. The judiciary opposes 
Appendix 2.6

measures that shift the costs of providing access to PACER to litigants filing cases in federal courts, unduly hindering access to 

justice. Additionally, other proposed funding mechanisms in the bill were novel and untested, making it difficult to accurately 

estimate revenue and determine if they would be sufficient to build the new system, integrate it with the current system to keep court 

operations running while it is being built, and sustain the new system into the future.

Although the Open Courts Act was not enacted during the 117th Congress, the judiciary expects that it (or similar legislation) will be 

pursued again in the 118th Congress. The judiciary is concerned that implementation of the Open Courts Act or similar legislation 

would create a substantial budget shortfall for the branch. It imposes significant and unknown costs that are funded by untested, 

inconsistent, or unreliable new revenue streams (or, in the case of current EPA services that are related to, but separate from, the 

CM/ECF system itself, there are no available funding streams provided at all). For any cost that isn’t covered by the available funding

mechanisms in the bill, the judiciary will have to seek additional appropriations to implement the legislation. This would force the 

public access program, including the critically important case management and filing system, into direct competition for funds with 

other core judiciary operations. In an environment of constrained resources, this could lead to devastating reductions in basic court 

services and the loss of necessary court staff. 

The judiciary shares Congress’ bipartisan interest in a modern, effective, fair, and successfully funded system and is committed to 

improving its systems for filing, storing, managing, and making available to the public all relevant court records. The judiciary, 

through its effort to modernize CM/ECF and PACER (described beginning on page 2.3 above), will also consider alternative funding 

mechanisms to reduce fees for many users, consistent with the branch’s longstanding commitment to providing the widest possible 

access to electronic records at free or minimal cost. 

Obligation of Funds from Electronic Public Access Receipts

EPA receipts (i.e., PACER fees) fund operations, maintenance, and improvements in EPA programs. Access to case information 

via PACER remains at $0.10 per page and the cost to access a single document (regardless of length) is capped at $3, the equivalent 

of 30 pages. Revenue is projected to total approximately $142 million in both FY 2023 and FY 2024. The FY 2023 revenue is 

supplemented by $151.3 million in carryforward funding from FY 2022, which includes $142.1 million in unencumbered 

carryforward and $9.2 million in encumbered carryforward funding. At this time, obligations are projected to total $232.3 million 

in FY 2023 and $208.0 million in FY 2024. 
Appendix 2.7

The obligation of EPA program receipts has been impacted in recent fiscal years by a ruling of the District Court for the District of 

Columbia in NVLSP, et al. v. U.S. In its ruling, the court upheld the judiciary’s use of EPA program funds for the vast majority of its 

public access programs, but determined that some other services, including courtroom technology, eJuror, and the Crime Victims 

Notification System, were impermissible because they lacked a sufficient nexus to information available to the public on the federal 

court’s CM/ECF docketing system. The judiciary filed an interlocutory appeal with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 

which affirmed the District Court’s ruling in August 2020, and remanded the case back to the District Court, where it is still open. On 

October 11, 2022, a court filing in the D.C. District Court provided the details of the proposed settlement in the case, intending to 

resolve the matter. The settlement totals $125 million and is subject to district court approval of the settlement terms. The settlement 

does not impact the Judiciary’s FY 2024 budget request or future budget requests,1 and it does not impact the Judiciary’s cost estimate 

for implementation of the Open Courts Act, CM/ECF modernization, or other budget initiatives of the EPA program. 

After the D.C. District Court’s original ruling, the judiciary shifted the funding source for the three disallowed categories from the 

EPA program to the Salaries and Expenses (S&E) appropriation, beginning in FY 2018, at a cost of approximately $30 million to the 

S&E account.

2

 Consistent with longstanding practice, and as upheld by the District Court, the judiciary will continue to use 

Electronic Public Access funds for the CM/ECF system and electronic bankruptcy noticing among other appropriate and necessary 

expenses.

The current FY 2023 EPA program requirements and projected resources are shown in Table A-2.1 on page 2.9. In FY 2023, 

requirements increased in three program funding categories: Public Access Services; CM/ECF Development Operations and 

Maintenance; and Communications Infrastructure, Services, and Security. The higher costs are due to several factors, 

including: the incorporation of necessary security updates, tools, and protocols; other changes associated with the system’s 

infrastructure, including cloud hosting; anticipated funding needed for unfunded requirements that arise during the fiscal year, 

including for the modernization of CM/ECF and PACER3

; and slippage for requirements not able to be executed in FY 2022,

1 The costs of the settlement will be paid from the Department of Treasury’s Judgment Fund, not judiciary appropriations. 2 The removal of these activities from the EPA program contributed, in part, to the accumulation of the unusually high unobligated EPA balances referenced on 

page 2.9. However, as explained herein, these resources are projected to be depleted by the increase in costs for existing requirements and additional 

requirements for the modernization project. The judiciary will continue to monitor the balance of revenue and requirements in the EPA program and will keep 

the Committees apprised of any necessary changes in policy or practice. 3 The Public Access Services category includes $23 million in requirements to be identified within the fiscal year. It is anticipated that many of these unfunded 

requirements will be for the modernization project. Due to the agile approach for development, more specific requirements are identified and further refined as 

the system is developed.
Appendix 2.8

but still required in FY 2023. 

In FY 2024, requirements total approximately $208.0 million. It is projected that $160.1 million will be needed to maintain 

current critical public access services, and an additional $47.9 million will be needed exclusively for the modernization project.

4

The table below provides obligation data by program and financing for FYs 2022, 2023, and 2024.

4 Due to the agile approach for development of the modernized CM/ECF and PACER, requirement costs for the modernization project will be refined as the 

project progresses. Currently, $47.9 million is estimated for the modernization of CM/ECF and PACER in FY 2024, based on a six-year timeline for initial 

development. Once the new modernized system is fully operational, it is estimated that approximately $56.4 million in current annual requirements for NextGen 

CM/ECF will be reduced, but other current EPA requirements will still be needed to operate and maintain the modern system and services.
Appendix 2.9

Table A-2.1 Utilization and Financing of Electronic Public Access Receipts &

Prior Year Recoveries ($000)1

Program Component ($000s)

FY 2022

Actuals

FY 2023

Financial Plan

FY 2024 

Request

Unobligated Balance, Start of Year $152,482 $151,311 $63,549

Estimated Receipts $144,870 $142,000 $142,000

Prior Year Recoveries and Exchanges (Projected FY22 & FY23) $6,205 $2,500 $2,500

Total EPA Financing $303,557 $295,811 $208,049

Public Access Services and Applications $22,186 $26,713 $22,098

CM/ECF Development, Operations, and Maintenance $63,570 $64,827 $56,424

Modernization of CM/ECF and PACER $489 $28,722 $47,894

Communications Infrastructure, Services, and Security $52,704 $86,675 $63,738

Electronic Bankruptcy Noticing $4,942 $4,910 $5,335

Allotments to the Courts $8,355 $20,415 $12,538

Total Obligations $152,246 $232,262 $208,028

Unobligated Balance, End of Year2 $151,311 $63,549 $21

1

/ Electronic Public Access revenues are deposited into the Judiciary Information Technology Fund (JITF). See chapter 11 for more information on the JITF.

2

/ The unobligated balance at the end of FY 2022 includes $142.1 million in unencumbered carryforward and $9.2 million in encumbered carryforward. This 

$9.2 million in encumbered carryforward (or project slippage) includes $2 million for allotments to the courts for the implementation of NextGen CM/ECF;

$856,000 for upgrading the design, functionality, and hosting environment of local court websites; and $6.3 million for IT security.