Ensuring public access to federal court records
Congress has largely earned its reputation in recent years as a partisan swamp, but there remain a handful of issues on which Democrats and Republicans can set aside the acrimony and unite for the common good.
Last week, as the two sides dickered over another round of coronavirus relief, the House passed by voice vote the Open Courts Act, a bipartisan proposal to make judicial records more accessible. The legislation dismantles outdated rules governing the availability of federal court documents, which impose significant fees on those seeking such information.
“These are public records sitting in the public domain,” wrote Sarath Sanga and David Schwartz, Northwestern law school professors, in a Wall Street Journal commentary, “and the judiciary is the only branch of the federal government that charges for online access. The latest White House press briefing will run you precisely zero dollars. Food and Drug Administration reports? Congressional roll call votes? All free.”
Under the current system, federal courts may charge up to 10 cents a page for court filings. This may not sound extravagant, but the cost to access documents in lengthy or complicated cases can run into the thousands of dollars. That’s an effective roadblock to many people simply trying to exercise their right to view public documents.
Some judicial groups argue that the fees represent a significant revenue source and should remain in place. But financial convenience mustn’t trump government accountability and transparency. As Mr. Sanga and Mr. Schwartz note, “the fees account for only 2 percent of the judiciary budget” and Congress could increase “judicial appropriations accordingly.”
The House bill retains limited fees for heavier users of the database, but the money generated will be spent to modernize the record system. The measure also demands that the judiciary “shall make public court records automatically accessible to the public upon receipt of such records.” In addition, according to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, the House bill mandates a 60-day public comment period before any fee increases may be implemented and requires a Government Accountability Office review of how the money is spent to build the new system.
The proposal now moves to the Senate, where Sens. Ron Portman, R-ohio, and Ron Wyden, D-ore., have introduced a companion bill. It has support in the upper chamber from members of a diverse coalition that includes Sens. Ted Cruz, R-texas, and Mazie Hirono, D-hawaii. Given the current political climate, the Senate is unlikely to take up the Open Courts Act until next year, but it deserves quick passage and the backing of Nevada’s Catherine Cortez Masto and Jacky Rosen.
The views expressed above are those of the Las Vegas Review-journal.
All other opinions expressed on this page are those of the individual artist or author indicated.