RECAP Archive is a free, publicly searchable mirror of federal PACER court documents operated by the Free Law Project. Unlike PACER -- which charges per-page fees and requires registration -- RECAP makes federal court filings freely accessible to anyone via CourtListener.com. Documents uploaded to RECAP by attorneys and PACER users with the RECAP browser extension are indexed by Google through CourtListener, which means federal court records that many people assume are buried behind a paywall are in fact fully accessible and searchable. If you are named in a federal court filing, there is a meaningful chance it is available for free on RECAP Archive and ranking in Google through CourtListener.
RECAP Archive mirrors PACER documents for free public access -- documents appear on CourtListener.com, which ranks well in Google for party name and case name searches.
The most reliable removal path is a federal court sealing order -- the Free Law Project will remove documents from RECAP and CourtListener when there is a valid court order to do so.
Direct removal requests are evaluated case by case -- the Free Law Project is most receptive to requests involving sensitive private data, minor children, or documents filed in error.
Google de-indexing of CourtListener URLs is often the most actionable near-term step -- removing the ranking page from Google search even when source removal is not achievable.
RECAP -- the name is a backronym for PACER spelled backwards -- was created in 2009 by the Princeton Center for Information Technology Policy and later transferred to the Free Law Project, a nonprofit dedicated to providing free public access to legal information. The project operates a browser extension that, when installed by attorneys or PACER users, automatically uploads any PACER document they retrieve to the RECAP Archive. Over time, this crowdsourced model has resulted in a substantial mirror of federal court documents covering millions of cases across every federal district and circuit court.
CourtListener.com is the Free Law Project's primary public search interface for RECAP Archive content. It is a full-featured legal research platform that allows anyone to search for federal cases by party name, case number, judge, attorney, or keyword -- for free, with no registration required. CourtListener indexes not just the docket entries (the list of filings) but the actual text of documents where available, which means that a party's name appearing in a complaint, motion, or order can be found and returned in search results. See our related guide on CourtListener court record removal for a deeper dive into CourtListener-specific strategies.
The practical relationship between RECAP and CourtListener is direct: RECAP is the document repository, CourtListener is the user-facing search engine that sits on top of it. When people and Google index content from CourtListener, they are accessing content that originally came from RECAP. This matters for removal strategy: the content exists at two levels -- in the RECAP Archive itself and in CourtListener's indexed search database. A successful removal request to the Free Law Project affects both levels. A Google de-indexing request targets only the CourtListener search URL that appears in Google results, leaving the underlying RECAP document intact.
RECAP's coverage is limited to federal court documents -- it does not include state court records. For federal cases, however, RECAP's coverage is increasingly comprehensive, particularly for district court filings from the mid-2010s onward. If you were involved in federal litigation in the last decade, there is a significant probability that documents from your case were uploaded to RECAP by one of the attorneys involved. Compare this to PACER itself, which remains the authoritative source but whose access friction limits casual searching.
The mechanism by which RECAP content reaches Google is straightforward: CourtListener.com, the search interface for RECAP Archive, is indexed by Google like any other website. CourtListener has developed significant domain authority over its years of operation -- it is widely cited by legal academics, bar associations, law school clinics, legal journalists, and litigants, and it publishes structured, content-rich legal documents that Google treats as authoritative. This domain authority means that CourtListener pages for specific cases, dockets, and party names can rank prominently in Google for name searches.
For individuals named in federal litigation, the ranking dynamic works like this: Google indexes CourtListener's case and docket pages, which contain party names prominently in case captions, filing descriptions, and throughout the text of documents. When someone searches your name in Google, CourtListener pages containing that name may rank on page one -- not because the documents were specifically optimized to rank, but because CourtListener's overall domain authority causes even individual case pages to compete effectively with other results for specific person-name searches.
The recency of RECAP content also affects rankings. Newly uploaded documents from active cases can appear in Google search results within days. For cases that concluded years ago, the CourtListener pages often continue ranking because the underlying documents remain available and the pages continue to exist without updates or competing content. An old federal case can rank on page one for a person's name indefinitely -- a static digital record of a concluded matter that continues to be encountered by anyone researching that individual.
Many people assume that federal court documents behind PACER's paywall are effectively private because most people won't pay to access them. RECAP fundamentally breaks this assumption. If your documents were uploaded to RECAP -- which happens automatically whenever an attorney with the RECAP extension retrieves them from PACER -- they are now freely available and Google-indexed through CourtListener, regardless of how obscure the underlying case.
Yes, you can contact the Free Law Project with a removal request -- and they do evaluate these requests. The Free Law Project is not a commercial entity indifferent to individual privacy concerns; it is a nonprofit that takes its mission of providing public access to legal information seriously, but that also has adopted policies acknowledging that certain documents should not be publicly available. The question is not whether removal requests are considered but what requests are likely to succeed.
The clearest and most reliable path to removal is a court order. If the federal court where your case was filed has ordered specific documents sealed, or if you can obtain such a sealing order, the Free Law Project will comply and remove those documents from RECAP Archive and CourtListener. This is the most definitive outcome -- the documents are removed from the source and are no longer accessible through any Free Law Project platform. It also addresses the AI search problem comprehensively, which de-indexing alone does not.
For situations without a sealing order, the Free Law Project evaluates removal requests on their specific merits. The factors they have publicly stated carry weight include: whether the document contains sensitive personal information that courts typically protect (Social Security numbers, financial account numbers, medical information, home addresses); whether the case involved minor children whose identities should be protected; whether documents were filed in error and contain information that should not have been disclosed in the filing; and in some cases, whether the continued accessibility of the document serves any meaningful public interest relative to the privacy harm it causes. Standard public records from contested civil litigation between parties who are adults are generally not removed absent these specific circumstances.
The Free Law Project has published guidance on its privacy and removal policies, reflecting its effort to balance public access to court records with individual privacy interests. The organization's baseline position is that public court records should be publicly accessible -- this is the foundational principle that drives RECAP's mission. Departures from this baseline require documented justification. Understanding the specific criteria helps calibrate whether a removal request is worth pursuing and how to frame it effectively.
If a court has ordered a document sealed, the Free Law Project will honor the sealing order and remove the document from RECAP Archive and CourtListener. A copy of the sealing order should be provided with the request. The challenge in some cases is that RECAP may have obtained documents before a sealing order was entered -- in which case the Free Law Project's obligation depends on whether they received notice of the sealing order. In general, the Free Law Project has responded to sealing order notifications by removing the affected documents.
Courts have redaction requirements for certain categories of sensitive personal information -- Social Security numbers, financial account numbers, dates of birth, names of minor children, and home addresses of individuals in certain case types. If a document was uploaded to RECAP containing this information without proper redaction, a removal request based on the presence of inadequately redacted sensitive information has merit. The appropriate remedy might be redaction of the sensitive information rather than complete removal of the document, but either outcome limits the harm.
Cases involving children -- particularly in family law contexts, child protective proceedings, or juvenile matters that were inadvertently included in federal dockets -- receive additional consideration. The identities of minor children in court proceedings are protected in many contexts, and documents that reveal their names or identifying information may be removed when a specific privacy interest is identified.
For individuals for whom RECAP removal is a priority and who cannot otherwise qualify under the Free Law Project's privacy criteria, obtaining a sealing order from the originating federal court is the most complete solution. A sealing motion must overcome the federal courts' strong presumption in favor of public access to court records. The grounds most likely to succeed in a sealing motion are: the case is closed and the records contain sensitive personal information (such as trade secrets, medical records, or personal financial data) that has no continuing public interest value; the records involve sealed settlement terms or confidential business information that the parties agreed to protect; or the records identify victims of certain crimes whose identities are protected by law. An attorney experienced in federal court privacy motions is essential for this process.
The federal courts and the Free Law Project both operate under a strong presumption of public access to court records. Most removal requests that do not involve a court order, sensitive redacted information, or minor children are declined. If direct removal is not achievable, Google de-indexing of the CourtListener URL is the primary near-term alternative and should be pursued in parallel with any source-level request.
RECAP Archive record showing in your searches? Our specialists can assess what removal paths are realistic for your specific situation.
Start at RemoveNews.aiGoogle de-indexing targets the CourtListener URL that ranks in Google search results. If the de-indexing request is successful, that specific CourtListener page disappears from Google search results -- even while the underlying RECAP document and the CourtListener page itself remain accessible to anyone who navigates directly or uses CourtListener's own search. For most people, Google is the primary vector through which they encounter RECAP content; de-indexing from Google effectively removes the listing from the most common discovery channel.
Use Google's legal removal troubleshooter to identify the appropriate request type for your situation. The primary grounds applicable to CourtListener/RECAP content are:
Personal information removal: If the CourtListener page contains sensitive personal information -- particularly inadequately redacted information like Social Security numbers, financial account numbers, or medical information -- Google's personal information removal policy may support de-indexing. This ground is strongest when the document itself contains identifiable violations of standard court redaction requirements.
Outdated content removal: For older RECAP records where the underlying case concluded years ago, the parties were private individuals with no ongoing public relevance, and the continued prominence of the CourtListener page serves no discernible current public interest, Google's outdated content removal tool is available. Google evaluates these requests based on the age of the case, the nature of the parties (public figure vs. private individual), and the proportionality of continued visibility relative to privacy impact.
Right to Be Forgotten (RTBF): EU and UK residents have access to the RTBF mechanism for requesting de-indexing of content from Google's European search results. For older federal court records involving private individuals, RTBF requests targeting CourtListener URLs are worth pursuing for those who qualify. The geographic limitation -- RTBF only affects European Google results -- is a meaningful constraint for US-based individuals, but it is still a worthwhile step for anyone who qualifies.
De-indexing the CourtListener URL eliminates the Google search discovery path but does not affect direct CourtListener access, AI search systems that have already incorporated the content, or other search engines (Bing, DuckDuckGo) that index CourtListener independently. A complete approach addresses all vectors, not just Google.
RECAP Archive and CourtListener are among the most valuable legal datasets for AI training and retrieval. The combination of machine-readable structured documents, free public access, and comprehensive federal court coverage makes this data highly attractive for AI systems. RECAP documents have been incorporated into AI training data and are actively cited by retrieval-augmented AI tools like Perplexity, which queries CourtListener in real time. ChatGPT and Google AI Overviews also incorporate federal court information that traces back to RECAP data. De-indexing from Google does not remove content from AI systems that have already processed it.
When someone uses an AI tool to research a person who was involved in federal litigation, there is a real possibility that the AI's response will draw on RECAP/CourtListener data -- including the content of specific documents -- even if those documents have been de-indexed from standard Google search. Perplexity, which performs real-time web retrieval, can query CourtListener directly. ChatGPT's training data includes legal information datasets that overlap substantially with RECAP's coverage. Google AI Overviews draws on indexed content that may include CourtListener pages regardless of whether a specific page appears in standard search results.
The consequence is that RECAP content can affect how AI tools describe a person even after Google de-indexing has occurred. This is not a theoretical concern -- in 2026, a meaningful proportion of professional due diligence and personal background research involves asking AI tools rather than, or in addition to, conducting standard Google searches. An AI that is familiar with a federal court case can surface that information in response to a direct question about a person, making the case details accessible through a channel that de-indexing does not reach.
The most complete solution to the AI search problem with RECAP content is source-level removal -- getting the document removed from RECAP Archive itself, which prevents any future retrieval or training on that content. For documents that cannot be removed from RECAP directly, managing the broader information environment surrounding your name -- through authoritative content that gives AI systems more positive and accurate material to draw on -- reduces the relative prominence of RECAP information in AI-generated responses over time.
Addressing a RECAP Archive listing effectively requires navigating overlapping legal and technical domains: federal court procedure (if a sealing motion is warranted), the Free Law Project's specific removal criteria, Google's de-indexing process, and the broader reputation management strategy to address AI search exposure. These are distinct specialties, and most people dealing with a RECAP listing that is affecting their reputation face each of them for the first time.
The most common mistake in handling RECAP listings is pursuing only one approach sequentially rather than all viable approaches in parallel. Someone who files a sealing motion and waits for a court ruling before pursuing Google de-indexing has left months of search exposure unaddressed while the court considers their motion. The most effective strategy runs a direct Free Law Project removal request, a Google de-indexing request for the CourtListener URL, and a suppression content strategy simultaneously -- compressing the timeline to meaningful results.
At Reputation Resolutions -- the team behind RemoveNews.ai -- we have worked with individuals and businesses navigating federal court records appearing through RECAP Archive. Our approach starts with an honest assessment of which paths are realistic for the specific situation, followed by parallel execution on all viable fronts. For comprehensive court record suppression services including RECAP and CourtListener, see Reputation Resolutions' full removal services. You pay only if we succeed.
Reach us at 855-239-5322 for a direct conversation with a specialist, or use the consultation form below to describe your RECAP situation. We respond within one business day.
Tell us about your RECAP Archive or CourtListener situation and a specialist will personally review your options and respond within one business day. No pressure, no obligation.
Our specialists handle Free Law Project removal requests, Google de-indexing for CourtListener URLs, and suppression campaigns -- tailored to what's realistic for your specific case. No upfront cost.
You only pay if we remove your court record. No charge if we don’t.
A+ BBB · 100% Confidential · You only pay if we remove your court record