The Trump Justice Department is escalating its fight over the Jeffrey Epstein files, asking a federal appeals court to intervene as Attorney General Todd Blanche faces new court-ordered deadlines in a lawsuit challenging the government’s handling of the records.
Blanche’s Justice Department has asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to halt portions of U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan’s orders requiring additional action on Epstein-related records.
The dispute centers on a lawsuit brought by attorney and journalist Katie Phang, who alleges that the Justice Department has failed to comply fully with the Epstein Files Transparency Act.
Among the records at issue are foreign-language documents that the Justice Department previously declined to review, disputed redactions and handwritten FBI interview notes underlying previously released reports.
Sullivan has repeatedly rejected several of the department’s arguments for withholding or declining to review those materials.
Now the Justice Department wants the appeals court to step in.
DOJ Challenges the Lawsuit Itself
The Justice Department’s argument is not simply that particular Epstein records should remain secret.
It is also challenging whether Phang has the legal authority to bring the lawsuit in the first place.
DOJ argues that the Epstein Files Transparency Act does not contain a private right of action allowing an individual such as Phang to sue the government to enforce the law. It has also challenged her legal standing and argued that Sullivan’s preliminary injunction effectively amounted to a final judgment.
Those questions could ultimately determine whether Sullivan has the authority to continue ordering the department to review and produce additional material.
But unless an appeals court intervenes, several requirements imposed by Sullivan remain hanging over the department.
The Handwritten FBI Notes
One of the most closely watched disputes involves handwritten FBI interview notes.
The Justice Department argued that certain handwritten notes could be withheld because they were substantially similar to typed FBI reports that had already been released.
Sullivan rejected that argument.
The government’s own Epstein review protocol, the judge concluded, does not provide an exemption allowing responsive documents to be withheld simply because similar information appears somewhere else.
Sullivan ordered the disputed notes provided to the court for private review.
That distinction matters: the judge has not simply ordered the handwritten records dumped onto the internet without review. The court would examine the unredacted material privately before determining what, if anything, should ultimately become public.
The records have attracted additional attention because they relate to FBI interviews with a woman who made allegations involving Epstein and Donald Trump.
Trump and the White House have denied allegations of sexual misconduct connected with the woman.
The court has made no finding that her allegations are true.
Foreign-Language Files Become Another Battleground
Another dispute involves Epstein records written in languages other than English.
The Justice Department previously told Congress that those records had not been reviewed because it was not practical for first-level reviewers to determine whether foreign-language documents were responsive.
Sullivan wasn't persuaded.
The Epstein Files Transparency Act applies to responsive records regardless of what language they are written in, and the judge concluded that the difficulty of reviewing them did not relieve the Justice Department of its obligations.
The department was ordered to begin reviewing potentially responsive foreign-language records.
Rather than simply begin that process, DOJ is now seeking appellate intervention.
A Judge Raises the Possibility of Contempt
The escalating dispute comes after Sullivan raised another possibility that dramatically increased the stakes: civil contempt.
Sullivan has not held Blanche in contempt.
But he warned that federal courts have the power to use civil contempt when parties fail to comply with clear court orders.
For now, the judge said such a finding would be premature.
The warning nevertheless places the attorney general in an extraordinary position: the nation's top law-enforcement official is fighting court orders concerning records that Congress specifically ordered the government to review and disclose under the Epstein Files Transparency Act.
Millions of Pages — And Still More Questions
The Justice Department has already released an enormous volume of Epstein material.
Earlier this year, DOJ announced the release of roughly three million additional pages, along with thousands of videos and approximately 180,000 images.
The department says victim identities and other legally protected information must remain redacted, and Sullivan has agreed with the government regarding some disputed redactions.
But the continuing litigation demonstrates that the argument is no longer simply about how many pages the government has released.
It is about what remains withheld, why it remains withheld, and who gets to decide whether those reasons comply with the law.
Blanche wants the appeals court to limit Sullivan’s intervention.
Phang is asking the courts to force the Justice Department to comply with what she argues Congress already required.
And Sullivan has made increasingly clear that, unless a higher court says otherwise, he expects his orders to be followed.