Open Courts Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Sen. Kennedy, John [R-LA]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 2, 2026
Bottom line
The Open Courts Act of 2026 aims to centralize, modernize, and make federal court records freely accessible to the public, funded by a new structure of fees on high-volume users, federal agencies, and potentially higher-income litigants.
What it actually does
This bill mandates the modernization and consolidation of federal court electronic case management systems into a single, centralized, and publicly accessible platform. It establishes new funding mechanisms, including increased fees for high-volume users during development and annual fees for federal agencies, supplemented by graduated filing fees if necessary, to ensure the system's long-term operation and maintenance while providing free public access to court records.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill will significantly enhance government transparency and public access to justice by eliminating the paywall for federal court records, a long-standing demand from legal professionals, journalists, and public interest groups. They contend that the new funding model is equitable, shifting costs to those who derive commercial value or have greater capacity to pay, while ensuring a modern, secure, and accessible system for all citizens.
Opponents contend
Critics might raise concerns about the complexity and potential instability of the proposed funding mechanisms, particularly the reliance on new fees for federal agencies and the potential for increased filing fees, which could still pose barriers to justice for some litigants. There could also be apprehension regarding the significant implementation challenges and cybersecurity risks associated with such a large-scale federal IT overhaul.
The bill is moderately complex but well-structured, allowing an informed reader to understand its core provisions within the given time.
Section 2(a)
Consolidation of Federal Court Records
This provision mandates the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AO) to develop, operate, and sustain a centralized system with a separate public interface for federal court records. This system will include dockets, filed documents, orders, opinions, and audio recordings from most federal courts, excluding the Supreme Court, immigration courts, and FISA courts.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that centralizing disparate court systems will improve efficiency, consistency, and lay the essential groundwork for enhanced public access to judicial information.
Critics contend
Critics might raise concerns about the immense scale of this undertaking, the potential for disruption during the transition, and the significant resources required for development and maintenance across the federal judiciary.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the desire for a unified, modern system with the inherent complexity and cost of replacing existing, decentralized infrastructure across numerous federal courts.
Section 2(b)
System Requirements for Public Access and Functionality
This section outlines specific requirements for the new system, including robust search, bulk access, and application programming interface (API) functions. It mandates automatic public accessibility of records upon filing (or unsealing), permanent, predictable URLs, machine-readable neutral citations for all orders and opinions, and automatic notifications for new records. The system must also comply with the E-Government Act of 2002 and the Judiciary Information Security Framework.
Section 2(c) and (d)
Development and Data Standards
The bill requires the new system to be developed using user-centered design principles, modern software development practices (e.g., frequent deployments, short cycle times, open-source architecture), and to establish data standards. These standards must be widely accepted, nonproprietary, full-text searchable, and platform-independent, with guidance issued to all covered courts within one year of enactment.
Section 3(a)
Short-Term Increased Access Fees for High-Volume Users
This section amends existing law to allow the Judicial Conference to prescribe additional fees for non-government entities that accrue $25,000 or more in access fees quarterly or utilize bulk-access functions. These fees, effective immediately upon enactment, will be deposited into the Judiciary Information Technology Fund to finance the development of the new modernized court records system.
Section 3(b)
Long-Term Funding for System Operation and Maintenance
This section establishes a new long-term funding model, effective 5-6 years after enactment, replacing previous fee structures. It mandates annual fees from federal agencies, equivalent to their prior PACER access fees (adjusted for inflation). If this revenue is insufficient, the Judicial Conference must prescribe new, graduated filing fees for civil actions, counterclaims, etc., based on factors like cause of action, filer status, financial hardship, and damages. These new fees would exempt filers with adjusted gross income under $250,000 (adjusted for inflation) and cannot deny court access. All fees fund the Judiciary IT Fund for the Act's expenses and public access programs. Excess funds over $50 million are transferred to the Treasury, and fee schedules must be reviewed and adjusted to prevent surpluses. Crucially, no fees may be charged to access the functionality of the new system.
Section 4
Digital Accessibility and Mobile-Friendly Design Standards
This section mandates that the new system must comply with relevant digital accessibility standards established under Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, ensuring access for individuals with disabilities. It also requires compliance with Section 3559 of title 44, U.S. Code, to ensure mobile-friendly design, as if the system were operated by an executive branch agency.
Section 5
Government Accountability Office Review
This section mandates that the Comptroller General of the United States notify Congress quarterly on the system's functional progress and GAO's access to sprint reviews. It also requires biennial audits of the system's quality, vendor compliance, and user needs, with briefings to Congress. This oversight mechanism sunsets 10 years after the system's full implementation date.
Section 6
Cybersecurity Requirements and Waiver Authority
This section requires the Administrative Office (AO) to ensure the system's cybersecurity in consultation with executive branch agencies and consistent with executive branch cybersecurity laws and policies. It also grants the AO waiver authority for executive branch cybersecurity requirements if they are infeasible or would grant the executive branch access to confidential judicial information, provided alternative mitigation actions are taken and Congress is notified annually.
Section 7
Online Availability of Closed Cases and Written Opinions
This section amends the E-Government Act of 2002 to require that electronic files and docket information for closed cases remain available online until the later of 15 years after case closure or transfer to the National Archives. Furthermore, all written opinions issued after the date of enactment must remain available online unless specifically redacted by court order.
Section 9
Electronic Bankruptcy Notice Modernization
This section amends Section 342 of title 11, U.S. Code, to explicitly allow for the use of 'electronic' addresses for bankruptcy notices and for notices to be provided electronically. This update modernizes the communication methods used in bankruptcy proceedings.
Excludes the Supreme Court of the United States, courts established under the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1532), and courts established under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA courts) from the definition of 'covered court' for the new centralized system.
Section 2(a)(1)(A)(ii)
Why it matters:It is standard legislative practice to define the precise scope and applicability of a bill's provisions within a dedicated definitions section.
Case for: Supporters would argue that these exclusions are necessary due to the unique nature, security classifications, or existing separate access protocols of these specific courts, particularly FISA courts which deal with highly sensitive and classified national security information.
Case against: Critics might argue that excluding the Supreme Court limits the comprehensiveness of the 'Open Courts' initiative, and that even FISA court records, where appropriate and redacted, should be subject to maximum possible transparency within a centralized system.
Estimated impact: This limits the scope of the new centralized system, meaning records from these specific courts will not be included in the new public interface, affecting the total volume and type of records available.
Sets the implementation date for the centralized system at 5 years after the date of enactment, but allows the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts to certify to Congress, within 4 years, that an additional period of time is required, extending the deadline to 6 years after enactment.
Section 2(f)
Why it matters:It is standard legislative practice to include implementation timelines and flexibility clauses for large-scale government projects, acknowledging potential unforeseen challenges.
Case for: Proponents would argue that this flexibility is crucial for a complex IT project of this magnitude, allowing the Administrative Office to address unforeseen challenges without penalizing them, thereby ensuring a robust and well-developed system rather than a rushed one.
Case against: Critics might view this as an opportunity for potential delays, which could push back the realization of free public access to court records by up to a year, prolonging the current system's limitations.
Estimated impact: Could delay the full public availability and functionality of the new system by up to one year, impacting the timeline for public benefit.
Stipulates that if the Judiciary Information Technology Fund contains more than $50,000,000 in unobligated funds at the end of a fiscal year, the excess must be transferred to the general fund of the Treasury. Additionally, notice of this transfer must be published, and the Judicial Conference is required to review and reduce the fee schedule within 210 days to decrease excess revenue generation.
Section 3(b)(1) (new subsection (f) of 28 U.S.C. 1913 note)
Why it matters:This is a significant accountability and fiscal responsibility measure, designed to ensure that the funding mechanism remains tied to actual costs and prevents the judiciary from accumulating excessive reserves from public access charges.
Case for: Proponents would highlight this as a strong safeguard against over-collection of fees, ensuring that the funding mechanism remains transparent, responsive to actual needs, and prevents the creation of an unchecked surplus within the judiciary's IT fund.
Case against: No strong case against this provision, as it promotes fiscal prudence and accountability. Some might argue the $50 million threshold is arbitrary, but this is a minor point compared to the overall benefit of preventing excessive fund accumulation.
Estimated impact: Prevents the Judiciary IT Fund from accumulating large, unobligated surpluses from fees, thereby potentially leading to lower fees for federal agencies and litigants over time.