4 ms·

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 tho

• hypersoar 4mo 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.
• nickpsecurity 4mo ago
  We should always be allowed to read and know the law we're required to follow. Preferrably for free or easily.
  • fireflash38 4mo 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.
• tptacek 4mo 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.
  • iamnothere 4mo 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 4mo 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 4mo 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.
  • ipython 4mo 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.
    • tptacek 4mo 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.
• manyatoms 4mo 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