In Big Leap, SCOTUS Announces E-Filing Is Coming Soon
The U.S. Supreme Court announced Thursday that electronic filing of case documents will be required beginning on November 13 and virtually all new filings will be available free of cost to the public. The system will not be part of PACER, the longstanding operation used by lower federal courts, which charges for documents by the page.
August 03, 2017 at 11:08 AM
8 minute read
Better late than never, the U.S. Supreme Court announced Thursday that electronic filing of case documents will be required beginning on November 13.
A press release from the court said, “A quick link on the Court's website homepage will provide access to the new system, developed in-house to provide prompt and easy access to case documents. Once the system is in place, virtually all new filings will be accessible without cost to the public and legal community.”
The system will not be part of PACER, the longstanding operation used by lower federal courts, which charges for documents by the page up to 30 pages. A new button called “Electronic Filing” appeared today on the court's main page.
Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. in a 2014 report, said electronic filing “may be operational as soon as 2016” but all the pieces came together a bit later. A revamp of the court's website www.supremecourt.gov launched July 28, setting the stage for the new filing system.
The release said practitioners will “initially” be required to file paper versions of filings as well as electronic versions. Petitions and briefs filed by pro se litigants, some of which may not fit required formats of the court, will be scanned by court staff and then posted on the electronic docket.
Social media and practitioners praised the court's long-awaited plan.
“It's certainly a positive step that will increase public access” to court information, said Pratik Shah, co-head of the Supreme Court and Appellate practice at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld. “We won't have to rely on SCOTUSblog as much.”
Shah added that practitioners are accustomed to electronic filing in other courts, so the high court's new program will not cause any difficulties. Practitioners will have to register closer to the start date for the program.
Fix the Court, a group that advocates for greater transparency at the Supreme Court, gave an uncharacteristic thumbs-up on Twitter. “We rarely get to say this, so we'll do so in all caps, THANK YOU, #SCOTUS!
Better late than never, the U.S. Supreme Court announced Thursday that electronic filing of case documents will be required beginning on November 13.
A press release from the court said, “A quick link on the Court's website homepage will provide access to the new system, developed in-house to provide prompt and easy access to case documents. Once the system is in place, virtually all new filings will be accessible without cost to the public and legal community.”
The system will not be part of PACER, the longstanding operation used by lower federal courts, which charges for documents by the page up to 30 pages. A new button called “Electronic Filing” appeared today on the court's main page.
Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. in a 2014 report, said electronic filing “may be operational as soon as 2016” but all the pieces came together a bit later. A revamp of the court's website www.supremecourt.gov launched July 28, setting the stage for the new filing system.
The release said practitioners will “initially” be required to file paper versions of filings as well as electronic versions. Petitions and briefs filed by pro se litigants, some of which may not fit required formats of the court, will be scanned by court staff and then posted on the electronic docket.
Social media and practitioners praised the court's long-awaited plan.
“It's certainly a positive step that will increase public access” to court information, said Pratik Shah, co-head of the Supreme Court and Appellate practice at
Shah added that practitioners are accustomed to electronic filing in other courts, so the high court's new program will not cause any difficulties. Practitioners will have to register closer to the start date for the program.
Fix the Court, a group that advocates for greater transparency at the Supreme Court, gave an uncharacteristic thumbs-up on Twitter. “We rarely get to say this, so we'll do so in all caps, THANK YOU, #SCOTUS!
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All‘Diminishing Returns’: Is the Superstar Supreme Court Lawyer Overvalued?
American Bar Association Calls for Enforceable Supreme Court Ethics Code
What’s at Stake in Supreme Court Case Over Religious Charter School?
Trending Stories
- 1NJ Jury Awards $4.5M After Woman Trips on Carpet
- 2Blake Lively Is Sued by Texas Crisis Specialist in Latest 'It Ends With Us' Lawsuit
- 3Pa. High Court to Decide Whether Flight in a High Crime Area Can Result in an Investigative Stop
- 4EB-5 Immigration Investor Program: a Win-Win Program, or Is It?
- 5People in the News—Feb. 6, 2025—Unruh Turner, Fox Rothschild
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250