Lawmakers can sue to ensure release of Epstein files, but not as part of Maxwell case, judge says

A federal judge has ruled that lawmakers championing the release of Jeffrey Epstein files cannot intervene in Ghislaine Maxwell’s criminal case, though they may pursue other legal avenues to enforce document disclosure.

Judge Paul A. Engelmayer denied a request from Representatives Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) to appoint an independent monitor that would oversee the Justice Department’s compliance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act. The bipartisan legislation, signed into law by former President Donald Trump last November, requires the department to release its investigative materials related to Epstein and Maxwell.

“We appreciate Judge Engelmayer’s timely response and attention to our request, and we respect his decision,” Khanna said in a statement following the ruling. “He said that we raised ‘legitimate concerns’ about whether DOJ is complying with the law. We will continue to use every legal option to ensure the files are released and the survivors see justice.”

The lawmakers had argued in their petition that the Justice Department’s slow pace of disclosure violated the law and caused “serious trauma to survivors.” While acknowledging these were “undeniably important and timely” concerns, Engelmayer ruled that the congressmen lacked legal standing to intervene directly in Maxwell’s sex trafficking case.

Instead, the judge suggested the lawmakers could file a separate lawsuit seeking court supervision or use their legislative powers to enhance oversight of the Justice Department. He noted that the Epstein transparency law, despite strong public and political momentum behind its passage, contains no enforcement mechanisms or penalties to ensure compliance.

The Justice Department missed its initial December 19 deadline to release all files related to investigations into the late financier and his longtime confidant. Officials have cited the massive scope of the project, explaining that hundreds of lawyers are reviewing more than 2 million documents to protect victims’ identities before public release. Thus far, only about 12,000 documents have been made public.

Engelmayer revealed that Epstein abuse survivors have sent letters and emails supporting the lawmakers’ request for neutral oversight, expressing concerns that the department was merely “paying ‘lip service’ to the victims” and “failing to treat us ‘with the solicitude’ we deserve.”

The judge’s ruling leaves the Justice Department to continue its review process without direct judicial intervention. However, by highlighting alternative legal paths, Engelmayer has provided a roadmap for Khanna and Massie to potentially pursue their goals through different channels.

The case continues to draw intense public interest more than four years after Epstein’s death by suicide in a Manhattan federal jail while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges. Maxwell, who was convicted in December 2021 of helping recruit girls for Epstein to abuse over a 25-year period, is currently serving a 20-year prison sentence.

Maxwell has recently petitioned the federal court for her release, claiming new information has emerged that warrants reconsideration of her case. Her conviction followed a high-profile trial that exposed the extensive network of sexual abuse perpetrated by Epstein with Maxwell’s assistance.

The Epstein Files Transparency Act represents Congress’s attempt to bring closure to survivors and shed light on how the wealthy financier evaded serious consequences for his crimes for decades. The slow pace of document release, however, underscores the challenges in balancing transparency with privacy concerns in such sensitive cases.

As the legal battle over document disclosure continues, survivors and advocates maintain that full transparency is essential not only for justice in this case but also to expose how wealth and connections may have shielded Epstein and his associates from accountability for years.