This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to
publication.

A federal judge has warned the US Department of Justice (DOJ) of possible contempt proceedings after it repeatedly resisted orders to justify redactions in the Jeffrey Epstein files.

The dispute centers on records that could shed light on Epstein’s wider network, including potential co-conspirators, and whether the DOJ has lawfully withheld them under the Epstein Files Transparency Act.

Washington, DC District Judge Emmet Sullivan issued the warning in a lawsuit brought by journalist Katie Phang against Attorney General (AG) Todd Blanche. Phang accuses the Trump administration of failing to release all records required under the Epstein Files Transparency Act or adequately explain why some were withheld.

Sullivan sided with Phang in June. He ordered the DOJ to justify certain redactions, produce supporting records and publish the redaction log required by law. DOJ lawyers have since delayed or challenged those orders and last week asked Sullivan to freeze deadlines in the case. Phang’s attorneys accused Blanche of trying to delay proceedings.

The Independent reports the dispute culminated in Thursday’s public hearing, where Sullivan raised the possibility of contempt proceedings. He said the hearing was public rather than sealed because of the importance of the case.

“The public has a right to know what the hell is going in this case. The victims have a right to know. The public deserves to know.”

The DOJ says it has never “knowingly violated, nor has it ever acknowledged violating” the law and argues that releasing unredacted versions of many disputed records would conflict with established legal protections. Sullivan has requested further evidence supporting the redactions and is expected to review it behind closed doors with attorneys present.

The records at issue go beyond a procedural dispute over government transparency. Some redacted documents allegedly contain the names of Epstein’s interlocutors and potential co-conspirators. That information that could be relevant to understanding the network surrounding his exploitation.

The disputed records include interview notes concerning unsubstantiated assault allegations against Donald Trump, which the DOJ “deemed duplicative of the typewritten reports memorializing the interviews.”