Associate News Editor
A federal judge has issued a new deadline for theTrumpadministration to release the remainingJeffrey Epsteinfiles, warning that continued noncompliance could eventually lead to contempt proceedings.
U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan, who was appointed by Republican President Ronald Reagan, said in a Wednesday opinion that the Justice Department had not adequately complied with previous court orders concerning redactions and withheld material in Epstein-related records.
He has orderedAttorney GeneralTodd Blancheand the Justice Department until September 24 to provide the disputed records related toconvicted sex offender Epstein, or explain why his orders were not “clear and unambiguous.”
The judge rejected the government's arguments concerning several categories of documents, describing one of its positions as “without merit.”
“Defendant cites no authority for the proposition that administrative inconvenience excuses him from meeting his statutory obligation,” Sullivan wrote in his opinion. “Nor does he cite any authority for his apparent contention that Congressional silence in response to the January 30, 2026 letter functions as an implied amendment to the EFTA.”
Sullivan wrote that a civil contempt finding against Blanche at this stage “would be premature” as such an order requires the defendant to have violated a “clear and unambiguous” order. Therefore, he gave the attorney general until September 21 to seek clarification with the court if any of the order was unclear.
The litigation was brought by attorney and independent journalist Katie Phang, who alleges that the Justice Department has violated the Epstein Files Transparency Act by improperly withholding or redacting information.
A central issue in the case concerns the government's justification for redactions.
Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward argued that some information could be withheld because it contained victims' names and other personally identifiable information. The Justice Department has maintained that protecting victims and private individuals is among the reasons material was redacted from the records.
The court, however, ordered Blanche to substantiate the government's representations that certain redacted names were those of victims. The order specifically identified correspondence contained in files EFTA01187999, EFTA02504630 and EFTA01022356.
Sullivan also ordered the release of handwritten FBI interview notes and foreign-language materials that the government had argued were impractical for a first-level reviewer to assess.
“The Court rejects Defendant’s assertion that the underlying handwritten FBI notes that formed the basis for certain FD-302 reports were properly withheld because they are ‘substantially similar to’ and therefore duplicative of the typewritten reports,” he wrote in his order.
The Justice Department had argued that a first-level reviewer could not readily determine whether a foreign-language document was responsive to the disclosure requirements. The court rejected that rationale.
Phang has argued that the dispute extends beyond the documents specifically addressed in the court proceedings, saying millions of additional records remain classified by theDOJas duplicative or nonresponsive.
