Judge Orders DOJ to Unredact Epstein Files by July 2 or Explain Why It Can't

A federal judge ordered the Justice Department on Thursday to release unredacted versions of several Jeffrey Epstein files by July 2 or explain in writing why it cannot, and found that acting Attorney General Todd Blanche is in violation of the law Congress passed to make the records public.

U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan, who sits in Washington, ruled in a lawsuit brought by Katie Phang, a lawyer and legal commentator. In a 48-page opinion, Sullivan wrote that Phang has the right to sue and is likely to prevail, and that a Freedom of Information Act request "does not provide an adequate remedy."

What the order requires

Sullivan gave the government until Thursday, July 2, to produce a specific set of documents to the public or show cause why it cannot, according to CBS News, which reviewed the order. The records named in the order include:

• Eight emails in which the sender or the recipient was blacked out.
• A draft indictment of Epstein with the names of potential co-conspirators obscured.
• A 2019 email that mentions several co-conspirators whose names were redacted.
• The interview notes behind several FBI documents that summarize unverified allegations against President Trump, or an explanation of why those notes cannot be released.
• A log listing every redaction the department has made to the files it has already published, which the law requires.

How the case got here

The dispute runs through the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which Trump signed in November after Congress passed it with near unanimity. Sullivan opened his order by calling it an "unprecedented disclosure law" that requires "extremely timely compliance."

The law set a December 19 deadline to release the files. The department missed it. It has since published the records in batches: a heavily redacted set in December, millions more pages in January, and a follow-up in March that included roughly 50,000 previously removed files restored after review. The department has said only about half of the 6 million pages it collected would be released, citing duplicates, unrelated material, and legal privilege, and has defended the remaining redactions as necessary to protect personal information and victims' identities.

Phang sued in April, calling the redactions a "brazen, shocking, and ongoing violation" of the law. The department argued she could not sue at all and should instead file Freedom of Information Act requests; Phang's lawyers pointed to denials of Epstein-related FOIA requests. Sullivan then directed the department to respond by 1 p.m. Thursday. It did not.

"By not responding substantively, the Attorney General has conceded Ms. Phang's merits arguments in the pending motion," Sullivan wrote. He also wrote that "the current high level of interest in the Epstein Files combined with the upcoming mid-term elections amounts to a circumstance that itself constitutes irreparable harm, especially where the Attorney General has not disputed that he is in violation of the Epstein Act." Sullivan was appointed by President Bill Clinton.

The department had asked Sullivan to pause any order in Phang's favor for at least seven days so it could decide whether to appeal. He denied that request Thursday.

The "torture video" email

One record covered by the order is a 2019 email in which Epstein refers to a "torture video," with the recipient's name redacted. Representatives Ro Khanna, a California Democrat, and Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican, had earlier questioned that redaction. Blanche later said on social media that the recipient was Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem, the former chief executive of the Dubai logistics firm DP World, according to CBS News.

Reaction

Phang's attorney, Brendan Ballou, told CBS News: "The government thought that it could ignore its own law and blow off a judge's order, all for the sake of protecting the very powerful and the very rich. It didn't work, and now the public will finally get transparency around Jeffrey Epstein and his network."

The Justice Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment from CBS News or NOTUS.

What happens next

The department has until July 2 to turn over the unredacted records or file a written explanation of why it cannot. It can still appeal. Whether it complies, contests the order, or seeks relief from a higher court will determine how much of the material reaches the public, and when.