Justice Dept. Rebuffs Judge's Order on Epstein Files, Seeking Two-Month Delay

The Justice Department told a federal judge this week that it will not turn over additional unredacted records from its investigation into Jeffrey Epstein, setting up a fresh legal confrontation over a transparency law that Congress passed with near-unanimous support less than a year ago.

Jeffery Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell at a gather in Palm Beach, Florida.

By James Lawson reporting from Washington, USA, July 6, 2026

Updated 1:13 a.m. ET

In a 17-page filing submitted just hours before a court-imposed deadline, the department argued that it had already fulfilled its obligations under the Epstein Files Transparency Act and asked the presiding judge, Emmet G. Sullivan of the Federal District Court in Washington, to either accept its justification for withholding the material or grant a 60-day extension so the solicitor general could weigh an appeal.

The filing represents the latest turn in a monthslong standoff between the department and advocates who say the government has slow-walked and selectively redacted a trove of records that Congress ordered released to the public. Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward, who signed the filing, wrote that the department disagreed with the judge's underlying legal reasoning but was nonetheless willing to work toward resolving what he described as confusion over specific records.

Judge Sullivan had ordered the department last week to either remove redactions from a dozen contested records or provide a legal justification for keeping them sealed. He also found that the Justice Department had effectively acknowledged violating the law — a conclusion Mr. Woodward disputed in this week's filing, writing that the department has never knowingly or admittedly violated the statute.

Central to the department's defense is a broader legal argument: that the transparency act cannot be enforced through private lawsuits at all. The current case stems from a suit filed by the attorney and journalist Katie Phang, who argues the department's withholding of records has caused her direct harm as a reporter covering the case. Judge Sullivan rejected the government's argument on that point last week, finding that Ms. Phang had standing to sue under the Administrative Procedure Act — a ruling the department is now signaling it may appeal.

The withheld material reportedly includes the names of Epstein's associates, internal email exchanges referencing what has been described in court filings as a "torture video," and FBI interview notes tied to allegations involving President Trump, which the White House has denied. The department has said some of the redactions were necessary to protect the identities of victims, including in emails where senders and recipients were concealed, and has argued that certain handwritten interview notes could not be feasibly reviewed for private information given what it called technical limitations.

The dispute follows a rocky rollout of the broader Epstein files disclosure process. The Justice Department missed its original 30-day deadline under the act late last year and has since released records in a series of staggered waves, some accompanied by public statements defending President Trump against what officials called unfounded claims made in the documents. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has repeatedly defended the department's handling of the releases in the face of bipartisan criticism from lawmakers who backed the original legislation.

The Epstein Files Transparency Act passed Congress in November 2025 after an unusual bipartisan campaign, led in part by Representative Thomas Massie, Republican of Kentucky, who used a discharge petition to force a floor vote over the objections of party leadership. The law requires the department to make Epstein-related investigative material public in a searchable format, with exceptions for victim privacy and information that could compromise active investigations.

It remains unclear when Judge Sullivan will rule on the department's request for a delay, or how quickly an appeal, if filed, would move through the courts.