Congress Didn't Want Courts Second-Guessing Pacer Fees, DOJ Says
Even if Pacer fees were excessive in the aggregate, there's no legal basis for treating any fee charged a particular Pacer user as excessive, cross-appellant DOJ said in a reply brief Wednesday with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
Federal Circuit (docket 19-1081, in Pacer). It said Congress reserved the power of overseeing the collection and expenditure of Pacer fees for itself, and didn't want that "subject of second-guessing in court." It said the E-Government Act has no private enforcement mechanism that would allow for money to be returned. It also challenged the idea the Judiciary has been unlawfully spending Pacer fee revenue, since all spending was for services that provide access to information. Plaintiff-appellants National Veterans Legal Services Program, National Consumer Law Center and Alliance for Justice challenged use of Pacer fees to fund some non-Pacer expenses (see 1901170031). Counsel for the appellants didn't comment Thursday.