Judge orders DOJ to unredact more Epstein files, says Todd Blanche conceded violating transparency law

U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan ordered the Justice Department to release less-redacted Epstein records or explain why the redactions should remain by July 2, escalating a legal fight over whether the department complied with the Epstein Files Transparency Act.

Reporting on the ruling said Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche conceded in court that the Justice Department missed the deadlines set by the law. The order also requires DOJ to produce a redaction log, adding new judicial pressure on the department’s handling of records tied to Jeffrey Epstein.

The case was brought by Katie Phang, who sued over how the department handled the release of Epstein-related material. Her challenge centers on whether the government has withheld documents it should have disclosed and whether the redactions already made are too broad.

What the judge ordered

Sullivan’s order gives the Justice Department two immediate options: disclose more of the records in less-redacted form or provide a justification for the current redactions. The court set the same July 2 deadline for any explanation.

The redaction log requirement could prove especially important because it would force the department to identify what it is withholding and why. In disputes over public records, that kind of log often becomes the key document for testing whether the government’s secrecy claims are specific enough.

According to the reporting, Sullivan’s order is aimed at narrowing the gap between what the Epstein Files Transparency Act was meant to open to the public and what the department has actually released.

How the dispute developed

Congress passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act in late 2025 and set deadlines for the disclosure of Epstein-related material. The law became the backdrop for a wider controversy over how quickly and how completely the Justice Department would respond.

The department began releasing records in stages, but the rollout drew immediate criticism for heavy redactions and incomplete production. By December 2025, the first public releases were already being described as partial and heavily edited.

In January 2026, DOJ said it had published 3.5 million responsive pages in compliance with the law. That did not settle the criticism, though, because opponents of the rollout argued that quantity alone did not answer whether the department had withheld too much or missed information the public should have seen.

Later reporting said the department identified more than a million additional potentially relevant documents and asked for more time to finish the release. Those earlier disputes help explain why the June 26 ruling is landing as another compliance test rather than an isolated procedural order.

The parties' arguments

Phang’s side says the transparency law is the proper path for obtaining the material and that prior FOIA requests were denied. DOJ, by contrast, has argued that Phang should have filed a formal FOIA request.

That disagreement matters because it goes to the legal route the court will recognize and the standards that apply to the records dispute. If the judge accepts the transparency-law framework, DOJ may have a harder time defending broad withholdings by leaning on ordinary FOIA procedure.

The reporting also says Blanche conceded that DOJ missed the deadlines in the statute. That point strengthens the argument that the department did not meet the timetable Congress set when it passed the disclosure law.

Why the ruling matters

The immediate practical stakes are whether more of the Epstein record set will become public and whether the department will have to defend its redactions line by line. If Sullivan presses for narrower withholding, the ruling could shape how aggressively courts enforce the transparency law going forward.

It also places the department’s document handling under more direct judicial scrutiny at a time when the Epstein record releases have already been criticized as incomplete. The dispute is not only about one set of pages, but about whether the department has satisfied its broader disclosure obligations.

The case is especially sensitive because Epstein died in jail in 2019 while awaiting trial on federal sex-trafficking charges. That history has made the records release one of the most closely watched federal transparency fights in recent years.

What happens next

DOJ must now either produce less-redacted versions of the records or explain its redactions by July 2. The court may then decide whether the department’s current approach is legally sufficient under the Epstein Files Transparency Act.

Further filings could clarify which categories of material remain withheld and why. They may also show whether DOJ intends to comply, narrow its redactions, or continue to defend its position in court.

For now, Sullivan’s order marks a new phase in the Epstein records dispute: a direct judicial demand for fuller disclosure, a public deadline, and a clearer test of whether the Justice Department met the law Congress enacted.