Despite facing two major cyberattacks in the past five years, the U.S. judicial system has refused Congress’s request for an independent cybersecurity review of PACER — its online court records system. Instead, court officials have adopted restrictive new policies that protect sensitive documents but reduce public access to unsealed records.
Senator’s Criticism
Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, known for his oversight work, criticized Chief Justice John Roberts for “stonewalling Congress” and failing to take responsibility for repeated data breaches. In an August letter, Wyden urged Roberts to authorize an independent expert review of the hacks and the judiciary’s cybersecurity management.
Earlier this week, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AO), which oversees PACER, responded to Wyden on behalf of the Chief Justice. The AO avoided agreeing to an external review, saying it is already modernizing its case management system (CM/ECF), with implementation expected in the next two years.
Wyden responded by saying that if the judiciary refuses to follow federal cybersecurity standards, Congress will be forced to pass new laws to make them comply. The AO declined to comment on his statement.
Transparency Concerns After the Hack
The hack, reportedly carried out by Russian actors, exposed vulnerabilities in the court’s digital infrastructure. To reduce risks, many federal courts have gone back to paper filing for sensitive cases involving national security and corruption. However, it remains unclear how the public will gain access to these paper documents, raising major transparency concerns.
According to an August 7 press release, the AO said courts are now using “more rigorous procedures” to restrict access to sensitive records. But a review of district court orders by Court Watch found no consistent process for deciding when sealed paper documents should later be made public.
Instead of uploading documents to PACER, courts now often post a one-page placeholder that instructs users to contact the clerk’s office directly. Even these placeholder pages incur the same PACER download fees.
Journalists have found the new system delays reporting. In some cases, key documents remain unavailable even after judges order them unsealed. Advocacy groups like Fix The Court argue that the judiciary’s “trust us” approach is not enough, calling for greater accountability and transparency in handling court records.
