Reagan-Appointed Judge Issues Epstein Files Deadline to Trump’s DOJ - Newsweek
A federal judge has issued a new deadline for the Trump administration to release the remaining Jeffrey Epstein files, 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 ordered Attorney General Todd Blanche and the Justice Department until September 24 to provide the disputed records related to convicted 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.
Newsweek has reached out to the DOJ for comment.
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 the DOJ as duplicative or nonresponsive.
The judicial dispute comes amid a separate congressional push for additional disclosure of Epstein-related records.
Representative Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican, has argued that the Justice Department has withheld millions of documents and has introduced legislation intended to create additional avenues for challenging the government's handling of the files.
Massie has also publicly identified 14 people whom he says should be investigated because of their alleged connections to Epstein. Being named by Massie, appearing in Epstein-related records or having associated with Epstein does not by itself establish criminal conduct, and several people on his list have denied wrongdoing or have never been charged with an Epstein-related offense.
The congressional effort and Sullivan's case are separate proceedings. Massie's proposed legislation does not itself determine whether any individual committed a crime, while Sullivan's case concerns compliance with existing disclosure requirements and court orders.
The developments come after months of scrutiny over the Justice Department's handling of the Epstein records.
The department has released millions of pages of documents along with videos and images, while maintaining that certain material must remain redacted or withheld to protect victims and comply with legal restrictions.
Critics, including lawmakers and journalists, have continued to challenge the scope of those redactions and the government's characterization of some records as duplicative or nonresponsive.
That dispute has also spilled into the political arena. Journalist Tara Palmeri said her press credential was revoked and that she was removed from the Republican National Committee's 2026 midterm convention in Dallas after she questioned Republican congressional candidate Robert Burke about the Epstein files. Palmeri said the RNC did not give her a specific rule that she had violated. The RNC had not publicly provided an explanation for the incident in the reporting available at the time. Newsweek reached out to Palmeri and the RNC by email for comment.
The incident is separate from the federal litigation but illustrates the continuing public and political attention surrounding the government's handling of the Epstein records.
For now, the next formal milestone is September 24.
If the Justice Department complies with Sullivan's order, the immediate contempt issue may not arise. If it does not, the judge has indicated that further enforcement—including a possible civil contempt proceeding—could be considered.
Newsweek’s reporters and editors used Martyn, our AI assistant, to produce this story. Learn more about Martyn here.
Contact Newsweek editors on this story: Jason Lemon and Gray R. Thomas
