Judge Warns Justice Department Over Epstein Files Compliance — Is America Better Yet?
At one point, the judge asked whether the Justice Department wanted another order simply emphasizing that his earlier order really meant what it said.
By Roberto Zapatero
Independent Forensic Investigative Journalist
Is America Better Yet?
A federal judge demanded answers from the Justice Department Thursday about records connected to Jeffrey Epstein and warned government lawyers that continued failure to comply with court orders could eventually lead to contempt proceedings.
Senior U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan held the August 13 hearing in a lawsuit brought by journalist and attorney Katie Phang.
The hearing produced something more important than another argument about who may or may not appear in the Epstein files.
It raised a simpler question:
Has the Justice Department followed the law requiring those records to be released?
What Congress required
Congress passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act in November 2025.
The law required the attorney general, subject to limited permitted redactions, to make unclassified Justice Department records concerning Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell and related investigations publicly available in a searchable and downloadable format within 30 days.
The law specifically reaches investigative materials, communications, flight and travel records, agreements with prosecutors and records concerning decisions to investigate or not investigate people connected to Epstein.
The Justice Department has released millions of pages through its online Epstein Library. The department says the collection will be updated if more releasable documents are identified. Its public site was last listed as updated July 17.
But the dispute is no longer simply about whether some documents have been released.
It is about whether the government has released what the law requires and adequately explained what it withheld.
The judge wanted answers
According to Courthouse News Service's report from Thursday's hearing, Sullivan questioned a Justice Department lawyer about several unresolved issues.
They included explanations for redacted names, handwritten FBI interview notes that were not released, and required public explanations for certain redactions.
Government attorney Andrew Block told the court that many FBI interview notes had been considered duplicative and therefore did not need to be published again.
But when Sullivan asked for more detailed explanations, the government lawyer was unable to provide several of them during the hearing.
Sullivan reminded the government that it knew what the hearing was about and should have arrived prepared to answer those questions.
At one point, the judge asked whether the Justice Department wanted another order simply emphasizing that his earlier order really meant what it said.
After a recess, Sullivan directed Phang's lawyers to submit a proposed order addressing the FBI notes and redaction explanations. He also indicated that he would privately review some of the disputed material and require additional information from the Justice Department concerning compliance.
Then came the warning.
Sullivan discussed his previous experience holding Justice Department lawyers in contempt and said he did not want to repeat it.
But he made clear that he would use that authority if necessary to ensure that justice is administered properly.
What this does not prove
The dispute requires care.
Phang has alleged that the government improperly withheld records involving Trump and Epstein.
That allegation has not been established merely because Sullivan is demanding additional records and explanations.
Nor does someone's name appearing in an Epstein document establish criminal conduct. People may appear in investigative records, correspondence, contact lists or travel records for many reasons.
The issue presently before Sullivan is government compliance with a federal transparency law and with his court orders.
That alone is significant.
Congress ordered the records released.
A federal judge has already found serious enough questions about compliance to issue a preliminary injunction and conduct further review. And on Thursday, the government still could not give the judge clear answers to several of his questions.
The next meaningful evidence will not be another rumor about the Epstein files.
It will be what the Justice Department produces, what it says remains withheld, why it says those records can legally be withheld, and what Judge Sullivan does if those explanations fail.
That is the record worth watching.
Sources
- Public Law 119-38, Epstein Files Transparency Act, U.S. Government Publishing Office.
- U.S. Department of Justice Epstein Library.
- Phang v. Blanche, federal court docket.
- Courthouse News Service report from the August 13, 2026 hearing.
- Michael Popok**, The Legal AF Evening Briefing, August 13, 2026.
I write for you,
— Roberto
www.isamericabetteryet.org