Search for: All records

Federal court records have been available online for nearly a quarter century, yet they remain frustratingly inaccessible to the public. This is due to two primary barriers: (1) the federal government's prohibitively high fees to access the records at scale and (2) the unwieldy state of the records themselves, which are mostly text documents scattered across numerous systems. Official datasets produced by the judiciary, as well as third-party data collection efforts, are incomplete, inaccurate, and similarly inaccessible to the public. The result is a de facto data blackout that leaves an entire branch of the federal government shielded from empirical scrutiny. In this Essay, we introduce the SCALES project: a new data-gathering and data-organizing initiative to right this wrong. SCALES is an online platform that we built to assemble federal court records, systematically organize them and extract key information, and-most importantly-make them freely available to the public. The database currently covers all federal cases initiated in 2016 and 2017, and we intend to expand this coverage to all years. This Essay explains the shortcomings of existing systems (such as the federal government's PACER platform), how we built SCALES to overcome these inadequacies, and how anyone can use SCALES to empirically analyze the operations of the federal courts. We offer a series of exploratory findings to showcase the depth and breadth of the SCALES platform. Our goal is for SCALES to serve as a public resource where practitioners, policymakers, and scholars can conduct empirical legal research and improve the operations of the federal courts. For more information, visit www.scales-okn.org. 

Abstract We implemented a user-centered approach to the design of an artificial intelligence (AI) system that provides users with access to information about the workings of the United States federal court system regardless of their technical background. Presently, most of the records associated with the federal judiciary are provided through a federal system that does not support exploration aimed at discovering systematic patterns about court activities. In addition, many users lack the data analytical skills necessary to conduct their own analyses and convert data into information. We conducted interviews, observations, and surveys to uncover the needs of our users and discuss the development of an intuitive platform informed from these needs that makes it possible for legal scholars, lawyers, and journalists to discover answers to more advanced questions about the federal court system. We report on results from usability testing and discuss design implications for AI and law practitioners and researchers. 

The docket sheet of a court case contains a wealth of information about the progression of a case, the parties’ and judge’s decision-making along the way, and the case’s ultimate outcome that can be used in analytical applications. However, the unstructured text of the docket sheet and the terse and variable phrasing of docket entries require the development of new models to identify key entities to enable analysis at a systematic level. We developed a judge entity recognition language model and disambiguation pipeline for US District Court records. Our model can robustly identify mentions of judicial entities in free text (~99% F-1 Score) and outperforms general state-of-the-art language models by 13%. Our disambiguation pipeline is able to robustly identify both appointed and non-appointed judicial actors and correctly infer the type of appointment (~99% precision). Lastly, we show with a case study on in forma pauperis decision-making that there is substantial error (~30%) attributing decision outcomes to judicial actors if the free text of the docket is not used to make the identification and attribution. 

The U.S. court system is the nation's arbiter of justice, tasked with the responsibility of ensuring equal protection under the law. But hurdles to information access obscure the inner workings of the system, preventing stakeholders - from legal scholars to journalists and members of the public - from understanding the state of justice in America at scale. There is an ongoing data access argument here: U.S. court records are public data and should be freely available. But open data arguments represent a half-measure; what we really need is open information. This distinction marks the difference between downloading a zip file containing a quarter-million case dockets and getting the real-time answer to a question like "Are pro se parties more or less likely to receive fee waivers?" To help bridge that gap, we introduce a novel platform and user experience that provides users with the tools necessary to explore data and drive analysis via natural language statements. Our approach leverages an ontology configuration that adds domain-relevant data semantics to database schemas to provide support for user guidance and for search and analysis without user-entered code or SQL. The system is embodied in a "natural-language notebook" user experience, and we apply this approach to the space of case docket data from the U.S. federal court system. Additionally, we provide detail on the collection, ingestion and processing of the dockets themselves, including early experiments in the use of language modeling for docket entry classification with an initial focus on motions.