Summary
The Federal Circuit held that 28 U.S.C. § 1913 note limits PACER fees to expenses incurred in providing public access to federal court electronic docketing information, allowing fees to cover PACER, CM/ECF, and EBN but not extraneous programs like the Mississippi Study, VCCA Notification, E-Juror, or most Courtroom Technology. The court also ruled that the Little Tucker Act provides jurisdiction over illegal exaction claims for excessive PACER fees because the fee-authorizing statute impliedly requires return of excess fees. The statute's 2002 amendment made fees permissive but did not restrict fees to PACER-only costs, and constitutional avoidance concerns supported but did not extend further than the district court's middle-ground interpretation.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction under the Little Tucker Act over an illegal exaction claim based on 28 U.S.C. § 1913 note.
- Whether 28 U.S.C. § 1913 note limits PACER fees to the costs of operating only PACER, or to a broader set of electronic public access services.
Holdings
- The district court had jurisdiction because § 1913 note, as a fee-authorizing statute, necessarily implies that the remedy for overcharging is the return of excess fees, satisfying the requirements for an illegal exaction claim under the Little Tucker Act.
- Section 1913 note limits PACER fees to the amount needed to cover expenses incurred in services providing public access to federal court electronic docketing information. This includes the costs of PACER, CM/ECF, and EBN, but excludes the Mississippi Study, VCCA Notification, E-Juror, and most Courtroom Technology expenses.
Key quotations
“We therefore hold that § 1913 Note limits PACER fees to the amount needed to cover expenses incurred in services providing public access to federal court electronic docketing information.” (at 29)
“In this case, where the statute authorizes the government to collect a fee for certain purposes, and it is alleged that the government collected fees in excess of the statutory authorization, the 'necessary implication' is that the fees can be recovered through an illegal exaction claim.” (at 14)
“the Committee 'intend[ed] to encourage the Judicial Conference to move from a fee structure in which electronic docketing systems are supported primarily by user fees to a fee structure in which this information is freely available to the greatest extent possible.'” (at 21)
Factual background
The federal judiciary charges fees for access to the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system. The fees are set by the Judicial Conference and deposited in the Judiciary Automation Fund. From 2010 to 2016, PACER fees were used to fund not only PACER operations but also the Case Management/Electronic Case Filing (CM/ECF) system, Electronic Bankruptcy Noticing (EBN), a Mississippi state court study, a Violent Crime Control Act notification system, web-based juror services, and courtroom technology. Plaintiffs, nonprofit organizations that paid PACER fees, alleged that the fees exceeded the amount authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 1913 note.
Procedural history
Plaintiffs brought a class action alleging excessive PACER fees. The district court denied the government's motion to dismiss, certified a class, and after cross-motions for summary judgment, held that the government was liable for using PACER fees on certain programs but not others. The court certified its summary judgment order for interlocutory appeal, and the Federal Circuit granted permission.
Remand instructions
The case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The district court may, in its discretion, permit additional argument and discovery regarding the nature of expenses within the CM/ECF category.