Photo: Alamy
A federal judge has ordered the Department of Justice to either remove key redactions from Jeffrey Epstein-related records or explain why the information must remain confidential, marking the latest development in litigation over the release of documents tied to the convicted sex offender.
U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on Thursday ordered the Justice Department to produce unredacted records by July 2 or justify the remaining redactions, granting a preliminary injunction in a lawsuit alleging the department violated the Epstein Files Transparency Act.
The order, issued in Phang v. Blanche, directs the department to either disclose or explain the withholding of several categories of records, including emails involving Epstein, a draft indictment, FBI interview notes and a public redaction log.
Sullivan identified the records at issue as eight emails to or from Epstein with redacted sender and recipient names, two Justice Department files identifying alleged co-conspirators, and FBI notes underlying four formal interview reports.
The judge also ordered the department to begin reviewing foreign-language materials that may be subject to release and to publish the redaction log required under the 2025 transparency law.
The lawsuit was filed in April by attorney and independent journalist Katie Phang, who argued the Justice Department improperly redacted millions of pages of records released under the Epstein Files Transparency Act.
According to the court’s opinion, Phang alleges the department concealed names in emails discussing a “torture video” and sexual activity involving young women, including minors, and also redacted alleged co-conspirator names from a draft indictment.
The lawsuit further alleges the department withheld 36 records referencing President Donald Trump, including FBI interview notes involving allegations that Trump assaulted a woman after Epstein introduced her to him in the 1980s when she was 13 years old. Trump has denied wrongdoing and has not been charged with any crime.
The Justice Department sought to dismiss the case, arguing Phang lacked standing to sue, that the Epstein Files Transparency Act provides no private right of action, and that the Freedom of Information Act offered an adequate legal remedy.
Sullivan rejected those arguments, finding that Phang could pursue her claims under the Administrative Procedure Act and had demonstrated concrete harm, including news reports she said she could not publish because of the withheld information.