> No, you said there was no one who can do it -- more specifially, you said that, as a result of the organizational structure of the US government, "there isn't really anyone who can tell even all the federal courts, much less the state ones, to all plug into a central electronic filing system."
I think that's an accurate statement. There is no central administrative authority over the U.S. courts.[1] The chief judges of the courts are responsible for their administration, and the Administrative Office of the Courts serves a policymaking/support role. So there is no "CTO" that can impose a judiciary-wide IT policy like moving to a single electronic filing system. That's why every single court has a different website, runs a different PACER version, etc.
Sure, Congress can exercise its legislative powers to impose such a policy, but it can do lots of things that way.
[1] I don't know what authority Congress Constitutionally has over court administration. Apparently, before reforms in the 1930s, courts were administered through the executive branch.
I think that's an accurate statement. There is no central administrative authority over the U.S. courts.[1] The chief judges of the courts are responsible for their administration, and the Administrative Office of the Courts serves a policymaking/support role. So there is no "CTO" that can impose a judiciary-wide IT policy like moving to a single electronic filing system. That's why every single court has a different website, runs a different PACER version, etc.
Sure, Congress can exercise its legislative powers to impose such a policy, but it can do lots of things that way.
[1] I don't know what authority Congress Constitutionally has over court administration. Apparently, before reforms in the 1930s, courts were administered through the executive branch.