Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Legal Services V US (PACER Opinion)
Legal Services V US (PACER Opinion)
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Cross-Appellant
______________________
2019-1081, 2019-1083
______________________
IV
Turning to the merits, the only issue presented in the
main appeal is one of statutory interpretation, as neither
party has identified any material disputed factual issues at
this stage. We review de novo the district court’s statutory
interpretation. BASR P’ship v. United States,
915 F.3d 771, 776 (Fed. Cir. 2019). “We focus our inquiry
on the statutory language.” Id. Our “first step ‘is to deter-
mine whether the language at issue has a plain and unam-
biguous meaning.’” Barnhart v. Sigmon Coal Co.,
534 U.S. 438, 450 (2002) (quoting Robinson v. Shell Oil Co.,
519 U.S. 337, 340 (1997)). In making this assessment, we
secondarily consider the surrounding legislative history
and principles of constitutional avoidance.
A
On appeal, the parties reassert basically the same tex-
tual arguments presented to the district court. Plaintiffs
argue that the plain language of § 1913 Note unambigu-
ously prohibits setting PACER fees above the amount nec-
essary to recover the costs of providing access to records via
PACER. Drawing from various portions of the text, plain-
tiffs read § 1913 Note to authorize fees “only to the extent
necessary” “to reimburse expenses incurred in providing”
the “services rendered” (i.e., PACER access) in exchange for
the fees. Appellants’ Br. 24–26 (quoting § 1913 Note). In
other words, they say, “PACER fees must be limited to
PACER costs.” Id. at 2. In plaintiffs’ view, the district
court thus erred by interpreting § 1913 Note to allow set-
ting PACER fees high enough to cover the costs of operat-
ing CM/ECF, EBN, and courtroom audio recording
equipment in addition to PACER operating costs.
The government maintains its opposing construction,
drawn primarily from the statute’s opening sentence, that
§ 1913 Note authorizes setting fees to the extent necessary
“for access to information available through automatic data
Case: 19-1081 Document: 95 Page: 16 Filed: 08/06/2020