Justice Department Fights Judge’s Order for More Epstein Records in Suit by Journalist Katie Phang

The Justice Department is asking a federal judge not to order further disclosure of Jeffrey Epstein–related records in a lawsuit brought by journalist Katie Phang. The Department argues that it has complied with the Epstein Files Transparency Act and that many contested redactions are legally required to protect victims, law‑enforcement personnel, and privacy.

In a July 2 filing in U.S. District Court for the District of Washington, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche submitted “Defendant’s Response to Order to Show Cause” in the civil case Katie Phang v. Todd Blanche.

Phang’s lawsuit alleges that the Justice Department and Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche violated the Epstein Files Transparency Act by missing disclosure deadlines, over‑redacting and improperly redacting key records, failing to explain redactions, and withholding or even retracting documents that should have been released.

The DOJ says it has released roughly 3.5 million pages of Epstein‑related material under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, with another 2–2.5 million pages withheld or not yet processed. No Epstein associate other than Ghislaine Maxwell has been criminally charged in the U.S. for the trafficking conspiracy. DOJ has also created an online “Epstein Library” where these materials can be searched and downloaded, and it has invited members of Congress to review unredacted versions of more than three million files on secure DOJ systems.

CBS found at least 550 pages in the initial December 2025 tranche that were entirely blacked out; one three‑document series totaling 255 pages and an 119‑page “Grand Jury‑NY” transcript were completely redacted.

Survivors pointed to “abnormal and extreme redactions,” including an entire 119‑page grand jury document slated for public release under the transparency law that appeared fully blacked out in the public version, and complained that the DOJ offered “no explanation” for many of the redactions.

The DOJ’s statements say redactions were supposed to be limited to protection of victims and their families, removal of pornographic images and child sexual abuse material, and exclusion of some law‑enforcement information, while “notable individuals and politicians were not redacted.” Victims and advocates have disputed that last point, citing examples where high‑profile names appear to be obscured while some victims’ names and identifiable details were exposed.

President Donald Trump’s name appears across multiple types of records, including flight logs, contact lists, emails, and FBI summaries and tips.

The Justice Department’s response comes after Judge Emmet G. Sullivan granted Phang’s motion for a preliminary injunction and directed the department either to produce specific unredacted records by July 2 or explain why it would not.

The department’s preliminary statement says that it has “devoted incredible time and resources” to comply with the Epstein Files Transparency Act (EFTA). The filing notes that Congress did not appropriate new funds for this work, forcing DOJ to reassign attorneys from other duties to handle the review.

DOJ “strongly disagrees” with the court’s conclusion that the EFTA is enforceable through the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by private plaintiffs such as Phang. The brief argues that DOJ has not knowingly violated, nor has it ever acknowledged violating the statute.

The filing recounts that Trump signed the EFTA into law on November 19, 2025, the same day the Senate passed the bill. The statute requires the Attorney General to make publicly available, in searchable and downloadable form, all unclassified Justice Department records relating to Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and related investigations, subject to five permitted grounds for withholding or redaction.

Under section 2(c), DOJ may redact or withhold portions of records that contain personally identifiable information from victims or their medical files; depict or include child sexual abuse material; would jeopardize an active investigation or ongoing prosecution; show images of death or physical abuse; or include properly classified national‑security information. The law separately bars redactions based on embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity, and requires written justifications for redactions to be published in the Federal Register and submitted to Congress.

A significant portion of Blanche’s brief repeats DOJ’s argument that Phang cannot use the APA to enforce the EFTA because Congress did not create a private cause of action in the statute and because the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) provides an “adequate remedy” for seeking agency records. DOJ cites decisions from the D.C. Circuit and district court holding that FOIA is the exclusive route to challenge alleged improper withholding of records and that APA claims seeking similar relief are barred.

In its conclusion, DOJ asks the court not to order the department to take further mandatory action beyond what it has already done. Blanche writes that the DOJ is prepared to share additional details about specific records in camera or under appropriate protections if needed.

If the court nonetheless orders additional steps, DOJ requests a 60‑day stay so that the Solicitor General can consider whether to pursue appellate review, or at least a seven‑day stay to allow time to decide whether to seek emergency relief.

DOCUMENTED REFERENCES

Browse the structured archive of documented order records