The U.S. Federal Judiciary has confirmed a cyberattack on its electronic case management systems that host federal court documents and says it is strengthening protections for sensitive filings.
“The federal Judiciary is taking additional steps to strengthen protections for sensitive case documents in response to recent escalated cyberattacks of a sophisticated and persistent nature on its case management system,” the agency said in an announcement.
“The Judiciary is also further enhancing security of the system and to block future attacks, and it is prioritizing working with courts to mitigate the impact on litigants.”
What the Judiciary says it did and why access controls changed
The Judiciary said most documents in the system remain public, but certain sealed filings contain sensitive material. Those sealed records are now subject to stricter access controls the agency says are designed to block unauthorized access.
The statement framed the move as part of broader work to harden the system. It noted the growing volume and sophistication of attacks against public and private entities and called out the difficulty of protecting legacy systems.
Reported scope, timing and the Politico coverage
Politico reported earlier that the case management system had been breached and that the incident exposed sensitive information, including the identities of confidential informants. The report said the incident affected multiple federal districts and directly touched CM/ECF and PACER, the systems that manage and publish federal court documents.
Anonymous sources cited in reporting say the Judiciary learned the full severity of the incident on July 4, 2025, and briefed partners afterward without making a public announcement at that time.
The Judiciary’s public statement does not explicitly confirm that sealed PACER documents were accessed. It does, however, say the agency is working closely with courts to mitigate impacts on litigants—language that implies some parties’ information may have been affected.
Requests for additional comment to the U.S. Federal Judiciary and the U.S. Department of Justice were met with referral to the published statement. The agency’s notice remains the primary public account of the incident and the steps being taken.
