Pennsylvania Establishes Uniform, Mandatory Public-Access Rules for Case Records—Including Statewide Confidential-Form Filing and Remote-Access Limits

In Re: Order Amending the Case Records Public Access Policy of the Unified Judicial System
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Date: April 21, 2026

1. Introduction

This Opinion is not a merits decision between private litigants; it is the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania’s statewide policy act governing how the public may access Pennsylvania court case records, both at court facilities and through any form of online (“remote”) access. It standardizes (i) definitions and baseline openness, (ii) the request-and-response process, (iii) fees, (iv) mandatory handling of sensitive information through uniform forms, (v) categorical limits on public access at courthouses and online, and (vi) a streamlined process to correct clerical errors in case records.

The key institutional “parties” affected are custodians of records (e.g., prothonotaries, clerks, magisterial district judges), courts at every level, and members of the public (including the media) seeking inspection or copies of case records. The central issues are how to maximize transparency while protecting privacy, safety, and the orderly administration of justice— especially in an era where web publication can rapidly amplify harms caused by disclosure or by simple clerical mistakes.

2. Summary of the Opinion

The Court adopts and clarifies a comprehensive statewide Case Records Public Access Policy that:

• Presumes openness: “All case records shall be open to the public” subject to enumerated limits.
• Preempts local variation: courts/custodians may not adopt more restrictive or more expansive protocols than the Policy provides.
• Makes remote access optional but regulated: no duty to provide remote access, but if offered, it must comply with Section 10.0.
• Creates uniform privacy mechanisms:
  • Confidential Information (e.g., SSNs, minors’ names/DOB, abuse victim contact info) must be excluded from ordinary filings and placed only on a statewide Confidential Information Form filed contemporaneously.
  • Confidential Documents (e.g., tax returns, medical/psychological records) must be filed with a Confidential Document Form cover sheet and are not publicly accessible absent court order.
• Allocates responsibility to filers: parties/attorneys must comply and certify compliance; custodians need not review or redact filings.
• Defines courthouse vs. online limits: additional restrictions apply to remote access (notably for family, certain probate/guardianship-type matters, and sensitive criminal-case identities).
• Establishes a clerical-error correction track: a standardized form-based request, deadlines for custodian responses, and a defined review process.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

Jackson v. Hendrick, 746 A.2d 574 (Pa. 2000)

The Policy’s Section 11.0 (clerical error correction) is anchored in the premise that “[t]he power of the court to correct errors in its own records is inherent,” citing Jackson v. Hendrick, 746 A.2d 574 (Pa. 2000). That citation supplies the doctrinal legitimacy for a streamlined administrative mechanism allowing custodians to correct “patently evident” clerical mistakes (e.g., mislinked docket entries, misspellings) without converting the correction process into an alternate appellate route.

In effect, Jackson functions as the guardrail: corrections are for record accuracy, not a vehicle to relitigate the correctness of orders, judgments, or substantive rulings.

Other Authorities Cited (Not “precedents,” but influential)

The Policy repeatedly relies on “applicable authority,” and it expressly references:

• Pa.R.A.P. 531 (amici curiae are not “parties”), shaping who counts as a “Party” under the definitions.
• Pa.R.A.P. 104(a) (appellate courts’ rulemaking power), reinforcing the legitimacy of statewide access rules and amendments.
• Pa.R.J.A. No. 103(c) (local rule mechanism for MDJ fee schedules), delimiting who sets fees in that setting.
• 45 C.F.R. § 160.103 (HIPAA definition) as the source for “Medical/psychological records” framing.
• Statutory fee provisions such as 42 Pa.C.S. § 1725(c)(1)(ii), 42 P.S. § 21032.1, and 204 Pa. Code § 155.1.
• Substantive access limitations tied to categories such as Juvenile Act confidentiality (42 Pa.C.S. § 6307) and incapacity proceedings (20 Pa.C.S. §§ 5501-5555).

These references collectively show the Court’s method: align a single statewide access policy with existing procedural rules, statutory confidentiality mandates, and the realities of electronic docket publication.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The Opinion’s reasoning is best understood as a balancing and systems-design exercise—transparent courts by default, but with uniform, predictable safeguards for sensitive data and vulnerable case types.

(a) A statewide baseline that cannot be locally re-written

Section 2.0(D) is a strong preemption clause: “A court or custodian may not adopt more restrictive or expansive access protocols than provided for in this policy.” This accomplishes two things:

• Uniformity: members of the public encounter the same access rules across Pennsylvania’s courts, reducing forum-by-forum variability.
• Predictability for filers: attorneys and parties can structure filings and redactions to a single statewide standard, rather than patchwork local practices.

(b) Openness with structured friction: oral requests by default, written requests when complexity justifies it

Section 4.0 adopts an “access first” posture: oral requests are the norm. Yet it permits custodians to require writing for “complex or voluminous” requests, explicitly to reduce misunderstandings and administrative burden. The policy thus treats procedure as a tool to enable access—while preventing disruption to “the orderly conduct of court business” (Section 2.0(C)).

(c) Fees are limited, visible, and tied to “duplication,” not viewing

Section 6.0 caps ordinary duplication at $0.25/page unless “applicable authority” provides otherwise, requires fee schedules to be posted (facility and website), and clarifies that the policy “does not authorize fees for viewing records” stored at the court facility. The underlying reasoning is transparency plus cost-control: fees can recover duplication costs but should not become an access barrier.

(d) Privacy protection is shifted to standardized filing architecture—and to filer responsibility

Sections 7.0 and 8.0 create a two-track privacy system:

• Confidential Information (Section 7.0) must be segregated into a Confidential Information Form (e.g., SSNs, certain minors’ identifiers, abuse victim contact information). The general filing should not contain that data.
• Confidential Documents (Section 8.0) must be submitted with a Confidential Document Form (e.g., tax returns, wage stubs, medical records). Those documents are not accessible to the public absent court order, though the cover sheet itself remains accessible.

Crucially, the policy assigns compliance to parties and attorneys (with mandatory certification) and relieves custodians of any duty to review or redact. This is a deliberate design choice: it avoids turning record offices into privacy-audit units and places the burden where the information originates. At the same time, it preserves judicial power to remediate noncompliance (seal/redact/amend) and impose sanctions (Sections 7.0(F) and 8.0(F)).

(e) Remote access is treated as a distinct risk tier

The Opinion treats online availability as categorically different from in-person inspection. Section 10.0 prohibits remote access to:

• All courthouse-restricted categories (Section 9.0), plus additional remote-only restrictions.
• In criminal cases, identifying information for jurors, non-expert witnesses, or victims.
• Transcripts lodged of record (with a limited exception for portions attached to filed documents).
• Applications to Waive Fees and Costs (In Forma Pauperis) petitions.
• Family court actions (as defined by Pa.R.Civ.P. 1931(a)), except for dockets/orders/opinions—and even then the remotely available docket is “thin,” limited to enumerated fields.
• Specified actions governed by probate/elder protective statutes, likewise limited to dockets/orders/opinions with restricted docket fields.

The reasoning is preventive: remote access dramatically increases dissemination, searchability, and aggregation, which heightens risks to safety (victims/witnesses), privacy (family/probate matters), and fairness (jury integrity). The Policy’s structured “thin docket” approach aims to preserve public oversight of process and outcomes while minimizing exposure of sensitive details.

(f) A standardized clerical-error remedy reflects digital-era reputational and procedural stakes

Section 11.0 formalizes a fast, form-based method to correct “patently evident” clerical errors with firm timelines: an initial written response within 10 business days (or a short extension up to 30 business days), notice to all parties, and a review pathway. The Opinion emphasizes that this is not an alternative appeal mechanism; it exists to promptly fix administrative inaccuracies that can be amplified by internet publication (e.g., erroneous docket reflections of orders, scanning/uploading errors).

3.3 Impact

Systemwide uniformity and reduced local variability

By barring both “more restrictive” and “more expansive” local access protocols, the Policy may limit county-by-county experimentation, but it substantially increases statewide consistency—an especially significant effect for media organizations and high-volume requestors who operate across judicial districts.

Stronger privacy defaults—paired with higher stakes for filer mistakes

The Confidential Information Form and Confidential Document Form frameworks create clear, statewide methods for safeguarding sensitive data. But because custodians have no duty to review or redact, noncompliance can result in disclosure unless and until remedial court action is taken. Practically, this increases malpractice and professional responsibility exposure for attorneys and increases the need for standardized law-office filing workflows.

Greater separation between courthouse access and online access

The Policy entrenches a two-level access regime: what the public can inspect at a court facility may exceed what can be accessed remotely. Future disputes are likely to focus on whether a category belongs on the “remote prohibited” list, and on the adequacy of “thin docket” information for accountability.

Operational effects on custodians and court staff

Custodians gain clear authority to manage voluminous/complex requests and to maintain orderly operations, but they also inherit strict procedural obligations: prompt fulfillment where possible, stated reasons for delay/denial, written denials of written requests, and defined appeal/review channels. The clerical-error process may reduce motion practice by resolving obvious mistakes administratively.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• “Case Records”: filings and court-created records (dockets, orders, opinions) maintained by the court/custodian—excluding judges’ and staff work product like drafts, notes, and internal memoranda.
• “Public” (as defined here): essentially non-participants. Parties, their attorneys, and government actors in official capacity are not “Public” for purposes of this access policy definition.
• “Remote Access”: online searching/inspection/printing/copying without visiting the court facility or making an in-person request. The Policy allows remote access only within specific limits.
• Confidential Information vs. Confidential Documents:
  • Confidential Information is sensitive data elements (like SSNs) that must be placed only on a Confidential Information Form, not embedded in the main filing.
  • Confidential Documents are whole categories of documents (like tax returns or medical records) that must be filed under a Confidential Document Form and are not publicly accessible absent court order.
• “Sealing” vs. “Redaction”:
  • Sealing restricts access to an entire filing/record (or a discrete document) from the public.
  • Redaction removes or obscures only the confidential portions while leaving the remainder accessible.
• “Clerical error”: an obvious administrative mistake (wrong link, misspelling, scanning mismatch), not a substantive legal or factual error in a ruling.

5. Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania’s 2026 amendments crystallize a statewide, mandatory framework for public access to case records that is (1) open-by-default, (2) uniform across courts and custodians, (3) distinctly more protective in the remote-access environment, and (4) operationally realistic by placing primary responsibility for confidentiality compliance on parties and attorneys rather than record offices. By pairing standardized confidentiality forms with a targeted clerical-error correction mechanism grounded in Jackson v. Hendrick, 746 A.2d 574 (Pa. 2000), the Policy responds to modern risks of digital dissemination while preserving public visibility into dockets, orders, and opinions—the core artifacts of judicial accountability.