Judge Sullivan warns DOJ on Epstein files, cites contempt risk

Key points

• Judge Emmet Sullivan ruled that civil contempt charges are currently premature but warned they could become appropriate if the DOJ fails to comply with the court's renewed order.
• The DOJ was ordered to provide additional documentation for private in camera review, as the judge found previous justifications for certain email redactions insufficient.
• Sullivan rejected the DOJ's claim that handwritten FBI notes were properly withheld as duplicative of typewritten reports, noting the review protocol does not require withholding 'substantially similar' records.
• The judge dismissed the DOJ's argument that foreign-language materials were not reviewed due to impracticality, stating that first-level reviewers must determine responsiveness.
• The lawsuit was brought by independent journalist Katie Phang, alleging the DOJ has not released all documents required under the Epstein Files Transparency Act passed in November 2025.
• Sullivan acknowledged that some redactions were appropriate to protect the privacy of survivors, as well as the names of government attorneys and law enforcement personnel.

Background

This ruling follows previous tensions between Judge Sullivan and the DOJ in August 2026, where the judge warned attorneys about potential contempt for delays in justifying redactions. The dispute centers on the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which Congress passed in November 2025 to mandate the release of documents. Todd Blanche, sworn in as Attorney General in August 2026, has faced scrutiny over the department's handling of these files. The current legal battle is part of a broader pattern of congressional and judicial oversight regarding the Trump administration's transparency efforts, including past contempt findings against former attorneys general Eric Holder and William Barr.

Why it matters

The judge's warning signals that the DOJ's current compliance strategy may not withstand legal scrutiny, potentially forcing a broader release of sensitive documents. If contempt proceedings are initiated, it could set a precedent for holding the executive branch accountable for transparency law violations. The case also highlights the ongoing political friction between the judiciary and the administration over the handling of high-profile criminal records, with Congress potentially moving to enforce further disclosure through new legislation.

What to watch

The DOJ must provide additional documentation for private in camera review as ordered by Judge Sullivan. A House discharge petition is currently two signatures away from forcing a vote on the Epstein Files Transparency Act II, which would expand and enforce the release of remaining DOJ files. Retiring Representative Thomas Massie is leading the effort to advance this legislation, mirroring his role in the original act.