The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Why Has the D.C. Circuit Made It More Difficult to Find Opinions? [Updated]
A recent website "upgrade" is not an improvement.
[See Update.]
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit recently "upgraded" the opinion archive on its website. It is aesthetically appealing, but it is actually a significant step backwards for public access to the court's opinions.
In "upgrading" the site, the D.C. Circuit apparently re-indexed its opinions, revising the URLs. What this means is that all previously posted hyperlinks to D.C. Circuit opinions are now dead. Clicking on them does not pull up the opinion. Instead the user is dropped off on the opinion archive landing page. This, by itself, would be but a small annoyance if one could then simply search for the opinion question. Therein lies the rub, for there is no longer an opinion search function. Whereas on the old site one could search opinions by party name or docket number, there is no search capability at all on the new page. (There is, however, a way to browse by month and year, if one knows when a case was decided, but that's it.)
With these changes, the D.C. Circuit's website has gone from one of the better circuit court websites, in terms of the accessibility of its opinions to the public, to one of the worst. I hope this change is only temporary, and a search function is restored, as not everyone has access to PACER or on-line databases, and slip opinion PDFs remain superior for many purposes to available no-cost versions accessible on other sites.
While I am on the subject on circuit court opinions, let me also suggest that other circuits take a page from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and include at the front of slip opinions a) how participating judges voted, and b) page numbers for any separate opinions. This is extremely useful information to include at the front of an opinion and there is no reason for courts not to provide it.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
One of the key concepts of fascism is control of information.
Who wouldn't try to hide their embarrassments if they produced the kind of garbage coming out of the DC Circuit? A view of the dystopian judicial future if Democrats gain enough power to pack the S. Ct. as well.
A feature, not a bug.
Just from these 3 comments on this irritating by anodyne issue -
The new right - everything a fucking conspiracy; the only question is with what level of ironic cynicism you make the accusation.
Yeah, I would really like some of these people to stop helping.
At some point, I don't know that your favorite reflexive response "you have no proof this was malice rather than stupidity" really cuts the way you want. Such gobsmacking universal stupidity may well be an even stronger justification for a deep-seated changing of the guard.
People who jump to malice whenever something they don't like happens are what we call paranoid.
And who benefits from this? Under what theory would this be malice?
Check your beeper.
Methinks the guy who’s fleeing DC next week isn’t one to instruct us on paranoia.
My comment you responded to (and which I'm super-certain you thoroughly read first) didn’t posit that this particular debacle was driven by malice.
You absolutely went after me for thinking those positing malice were silly.
Did you assume I was getting out because I fear violence in DC on election day?
That's a pretty dumb assumption if you know anything about how and where elections work.
I'd also get out of Salem, MA about this time of year.
Not at all, silly goose. I believed you when you said so.
"The new right – everything a fucking conspiracy;"
These were jokes, dude.
Aren’t all U.S. circuit court opinions available on Google scholar by reporter citation? Breaking old links isn’t great, but how often are people using slip opinions once the reporter is available?
In 1998 Tim Berners-Lee wrote an essay "Cool URIs don't change". (URI is a pretentious spelling of URL.) Even 25 years ago web servers would let you support old links after rolling out a new web site organization.
But letting you do something you apparently didn't WANT to do is of little utility.
Programmers, including web programmers, should be let no where near product design. They don’t design products. They throw wrappers around APIs.
The problems described never got near their design, because they do it ex nihilo, filled with he exhilaration of their own awesomeness.
Unless you have a better explanation.
I encountered this problem today. In terms of my needs, the changes are bad indeed. The Tax Court did the same thing with its DAWSON system, but has gradually improved it so that some great database features are there to slice and dice the opinions. (But the Tax Court still does not have permalinks for TC Memo opinions which is, in my opinion, just dumb.
Public documents should be easy for the public to find. For free. I think that's very close the definition of a public document - or should be.
I still think that while Pacer was great for its time, it is antiquated now and its ridiculous that it charges.
If you're in a state with free and easy access to public judicial records, you know what I mean.
Ugh. Maybe some day,
It may be as simple as the site's search function was good enough to cannibalize revenue from PACER, which is funded from fees. The Judicial Conference has raised concerns in the past about pending legislation in Congress that would make PACER free.
There's always reasons not to do it.
But this is ridiculous. There is no reason that PACER should cost money to access (in terms of viewing documents). States have been able to do this - it's just inertia.
It looks like you can search google with a site:cadc.uscourts.gov and find opinions by docket number, party name, etc.
Why provide something that google's already providing?
I think the question was actually, "Why take away something you were already providing?"
I presume that the people making the call didn't use the search function themselves, and so saw no value in retaining it.
The question is, did they reformat the original database of opinions, or just put a new front end on it? If the latter, restoring the search function would be almost trivial.