What is the AFSCME v. SSA case docket number and how to retrieve filings on PACER?
Executive summary
The lawsuit filed by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) against the Social Security Administration (SSA) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland is docketed as 1:25‑cv‑00596 (also styled as 1:2025cv00596 in some databases) [1] [2] [3]. Public filings for that case can be viewed through PACER by searching the District of Maryland docket or using the PACER Case Locator with the case number or party names; several third‑party repositories and advocacy groups have also posted copies of key filings [4] [5] [6] [7] [8].
1. What the docket number is and where that identifier appears in public records
The federal district docket number reported across multiple court databases is 1:25‑cv‑00596 (sometimes rendered as 1:2025cv00596); CourtListener, Justia, Law360, and the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse all list the case under that number in the District of Maryland [1] [2] [3] [9]. Individual documents filed in the case carry that case caption and numbering—examples include an amended complaint and a motion for temporary relief that are labeled with Case No. 1:25‑cv‑00596 in publicly posted PDFs [8] [7].
2. How to retrieve filings on PACER — the quick playbook
PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records) is the official electronic access point for federal court dockets and documents; it requires a registered account and typically charges per‑page fees capped at $3.00 per document for the most common filings [6]. To retrieve documents quickly, register for a PACER account, then either (a) use the PACER Case Locator to search nationally by case number or party names, or (b) go directly to the District of Maryland’s PACER/ECF system and query by the known case number 1:25‑cv‑00596 [4] [5]. PACER’s guidance notes that searching by district when the court is known is often faster, and the Case Locator is useful if the filing court were unknown [5].
3. Practical tips and cost realities for researchers
PACER fees apply to document downloads and many users never exceed the quarterly waiver threshold, but researchers should plan for some cost if downloading multiple filings [6]. If cost or user friction is a concern, several free or lower‑friction alternatives exist: CourtListener/RECAP aggregates PACER‑sourced dockets and documents (though it may not be complete or current), Justia posts selected docket entries and specific court opinions, and advocacy organizations or plaintiff counsel sometimes post key briefs and orders as PDFs — Democracy Forward has posted motion and complaint PDFs for this case [1] [10] [7] [8]. Each of these sources cautions that their coverage can lag PACER and that PACER is the official record [1] [11].
4. What to expect once inside the docket — filings, appeals, and sealed materials
The docket for 1:25‑cv‑00596 reflects complaint filings, TRO/PI motions, a court order granting a temporary restraining order, subsequent appeals and motions to stay, and later filings including motions to dismiss and sealed joint appendices — material regularly referenced in news coverage and court indexes [9] [3] [12]. Some items—transcripts, sealed appendices, or ex parte exhibits—may be available only through the court or under restricted access rules; CourtListener and Justia note that not every PACER document is mirrored in their archives [1] [10].
5. Where reporting and repositories diverge — a note on completeness and bias
News outlets and advocacy groups emphasize substantive claims and court orders, while docket aggregators focus on cataloging entries; none of the secondary sources replace PACER for a complete, up‑to‑date official record [9] [1] [11]. Users should expect contemporaneous filings—such as motions to dismiss, emergency appeals, or sealed material—to appear on PACER first; secondary repositories are valuable for access and context but can lag or curate documents selectively [11] [1].