The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Why Did the D.C. Circuit Make It More Difficult to Find Opinions? -- Redux [UPDATED]
A good example of why the D.C. Circuit's website upgrade was actually a step backwards.
[See Update.]
Last fall, I noticed that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit had redesigned portions of its website, creating a new opinions portal. Alas, as I noted at the time, the new portal actually made it more difficult to find opinions because it lacks a search function.
Today the D.C. Circuit provided a good example of how this supposed "upgrade" was nothing but, at least if one is concerned about public access to the work of our federal courts.
Today the D.C. Circuit denied a petition for en banc rehearing in Lewis v. Becerra. There were no noted dissents, but Judge Pillard offered an opinion respecting the denial which comments on the panel opinion.
Seeing this, some might want to read the original panel opinion, perhaps to note who was on the panel or to look at the passages Judge Pillard cites (using the slip op's pagination)--and therein lies the problem. Because the D.C. Circuit website no longer has a a search function on its opinion page, there is no way to do this from the website. It is possible to browse by date, but no way to search by docket number or party name.
This change may not be a problem for biglaw attorneys (or even academics) with Westlaw or Lexis subscriptions of PACER access. But for others--like, say, the general public--this is a real problem. (Yes, I was able to find the original panel opinion, but why should i have to resort to other websites or services to do so? And what about members of the general public who may not know as much about how to track such things down, or how to track down cases where party names change or that involve repeat litigants.)
Note that my complaint is not that the D.C. Circuit failed to design a website that suits my tastes. Rather it is that the D.C. Circuit revised its website in a manner that eliminated prior functionality--functionality that is easy to provide, that the court used to provide, and that serves the aim of enhancing public access to the work of federal courts.
Court websites should be enhancing public accessibility, and this is particularly true for appellate courts. In this respect, the D.C. Circuit's recent revisions to its website--however aesthetically pleasing--are a major step backwards, and that's a shame.
