The Justice Department told a federal court it plans to appeal a ruling by U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan that ordered the agency to either release unredacted versions of key Epstein files or explain in writing why it cannot.
Sullivan's order, issued Thursday, June 26, gave the government until Thursday, July 2, to comply. The ruling covers eight emails with either the sender or recipient blacked out, a draft indictment of Epstein listing potential co-conspirators with names obscured, and a 2019 email that references several co-conspirators whose identities were redacted. Sullivan also ordered the department to either release the underlying FBI interview notes behind several documents summarizing unverified allegations against President Trump, or explain why those notes cannot be released.
The court further required the Justice Department to produce a log of every redaction it has applied to the files it has made public—a disclosure requirement already mandated by federal law.
The case was brought in April by independent journalist and legal commentator Katie Phang, who sued Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche directly. Phang argued that the redactions constitute a "brazen, shocking, and ongoing violation" of the federal law requiring the release of Epstein records. She asked Sullivan to compel the release of specific unredacted files.
The Justice Department's initial defense was procedural: it argued Phang had no standing to sue for the documents because the correct path was a Freedom of Information Act request. Phang's attorneys countered by pointing to denied FOIA requests for Epstein-related records, and Sullivan directed the department to respond on the merits rather than on standing.
The files at the center of Sullivan's order have drawn scrutiny from both parties in Congress. Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna of California and Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky publicly questioned why the recipient of one email—in which Epstein refers to a "torture video"—was blacked out. Blanche later suggested on social media that the redacted recipient was Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem, former chief executive of DP World, the Dubai-based logistics company. Sulayem has not commented publicly.
The broader release of Epstein records has been underway since December 2024, when millions of pages began flowing out under the 2025 Epstein Files Transparency Act, which set a compliance deadline of Dec. 19, 2025. The Justice Department has said it collected roughly six million pages of documents on Epstein and his 2019 death in pretrial custody, but that only about half would be released. The department says the withheld material consists of duplicates, records unrelated to Epstein, or documents protected by legal privilege.
Lawmakers and Epstein survivors have challenged that characterization, arguing that heavily redacted records and missing files point to deliberate concealment rather than routine legal protection. The released documents already include photographs, emails and law enforcement records from federal investigations into the disgraced financier.
By signaling an appeal, the Justice Department is asking a higher court to reverse Sullivan's order before the July 2 deadline passes, effectively pausing the obligation to produce or justify each specific redaction. The appeal path runs through the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which handles cases from Sullivan's court.
Phang's attorneys responded to the department's planned appeal by noting that the pattern of denied FOIA requests and selective redactions leaves the public with no functioning alternative to court action. Sullivan's ruling validated that argument, at least at the district level, by declining to dismiss the lawsuit on standing grounds and ordering affirmative steps from the government.
