It should be clear in HN of all places that what the product is named and what it does at a technical level is not the same thing. Technically, PACER is a view into the ECFS database, and it’s not set up for the sort of wide-spread public access you’re talking about. One could build such a system, but now you’re talking about building that system at substantial cost, while undercutting your PACER revenue. And I’m not clear what the public benefit is that justifies that.

I think in a common law system like ours, opinions must be available to the public as a matter of political morality. I don’t think that same moral justification extends to the other filings in cases, which don’t have the force of law. I think you need some utilitarian justification for incurring the cost of making these more widely available, and I don’t see a compelling one.