Judge orders DOJ to unredact Epstein files, or explain

Judge orders – On June 25, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan ordered acting Attorney General Todd Blanche to either release more unredacted Epstein investigative records or justify every remaining redaction—at the same time Ghislaine Maxwell argues newly disclosed documents

A federal judge’s demand landed with a deadline and a clear warning: either the Department of Justice releases more unredacted records from the Jeffrey Epstein investigation, or it explains why the redactions are legally justified.

U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan issued the order on Thursday, June 25. He directed acting Attorney General Todd Blanche to either explain why the DOJ has continued to withhold portions of the investigative records or remove the redactions. Sullivan also ordered the government to provide a list of every redaction made to the Epstein files.

The dispute ties directly into a new push for transparency under the Epstein Files Transparency Act. and into Ghislaine Maxwell’s fight to overturn her conviction. Maxwell. a convicted Epstein associate. has argued that documents disclosed this year under the act contain newly uncovered evidence that undermines her conviction.

Sullivan’s order traces back to a lawsuit filed in April by independent journalist Katie Phang. She argued that the redactions amount to a “brazen, shocking and ongoing violation” of the federal law requiring the release of Epstein-related records.

The DOJ’s release this year has already become a flashpoint. Earlier this year. the department released more than 3 million pages of records pertaining to Epstein while withholding or heavily redacting other material. The DOJ cited attorney-client privilege, duplicate records and other legal exemptions. Officials have said roughly half of the more than 6 million pages collected during the investigation remain unreleased because they are duplicative. unrelated to Epstein. or otherwise exempt from disclosure.

And in a separate statement earlier this month, the DOJ told CBS that it “has released every document required by the Epstein Files Transparency Act.” That assurance now sits under Sullivan’s order to either unredact more or provide an explanation sturdy enough to satisfy a federal judge.

Bipartisan anger has grown around the extent of the redactions, including criticism from both lawmakers and victims’ advocates. One widely discussed point involves an email referencing a “torture video.” Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna and Republican Rep. Thomas Massie questioned why the recipient’s identity was blacked out.

Blanche later identified the recipient as Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem. Blanche said the redaction applied only to personally identifiable information contained in the email address rather than the individual’s name.

While the judge’s order moves through the court, Maxwell is pressing her own constitutional challenge. She filed an amended habeas corpus petition arguing that documents released under the Epstein Files Transparency Act show that her constitutional rights were violated before her December 2021 conviction.

Maxwell. representing herself. claimed that lawyers representing Epstein’s accusers acted as “de facto prosecutors and agents of the government. ” denying her due process. She also cited a letter from a former federal prosecutor stating. “I did what I could. ” in regards to assisting the victims’ attorneys in efforts to undo Epstein’s controversial 2007 federal non-prosecution agreement in Florida.

Maxwell’s amended petition also asserts that the newly released records show prosecutors failed to conduct “any real investigation of their own. ” leading to “misrepresentations to judges and the jury resulting in an unsafe conviction.” She cited prosecutors’ failure to interview Leslie Wexner. the billionaire founder behind Victoria’s Secret. who testified before Congress in February that he ended his relationship with Epstein in 2007 and had no knowledge of Epstein’s criminal conduct.

Prosecutors, for their part, are pushing back hard. Federal prosecutors urged U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer, who is overseeing Maxwell’s petition, to reject the filing. U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton argued that most of Maxwell’s claims were filed too late and that the remaining allegations were speculative or legally deficient.

“In short, the defendant — for multiple, independent reasons — utterly fails to carry her burden to overturn her proper conviction and just sentence,” Clayton wrote in a filing made public on Wednesday, June 24.

Maxwell has repeatedly sought to overturn her conviction. One of her earlier arguments was that Epstein’s 2007 non-prosecution agreement shielded her from prosecution. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear that appeal in October 2025.

The sequence of events reads like two parallel fights over the same trove: a court demanding that the public record match the law, and another court weighing whether newly released documents can undo a conviction. In both, what matters most is what’s missing—and whether those gaps can be justified.

As Sullivan gave DOJ an order on June 25 to either remove redactions or explain them line by line. Maxwell’s amended habeas petition was already turning those newly disclosed materials into a central argument for constitutional error. Engelmayer now has to consider the prosecutors’ response. while Blanche and the DOJ face the immediate task of meeting Sullivan’s demand for clarity over the remaining blackouts.

Emmet Sullivan Todd Blanche DOJ Epstein files Epstein Files Transparency Act Ghislaine Maxwell habeas corpus Katie Phang Ro Khanna Thomas Massie Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem Leslie Wexner