Judge Rejects Bid for Independent Oversight of DOJ’s Epstein Files Release
A federal judge has rejected an effort by two lawmakers to place independent oversight on the Justice Department’s release of records related to the late financier Jeffrey Epstein, even as he acknowledged ongoing concerns about whether the department is complying with federal law.
U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer of the Southern District of New York ruled Wednesday that he lacks the authority to appoint an independent monitor to oversee the release of the Epstein files, as requested by Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.). In a seven-page opinion, Engelmayer said his judicial role is limited to supervising the criminal case involving Epstein’s associate Ghislaine Maxwell and does not extend to monitoring the Justice Department’s compliance with disclosure requirements under the Epstein Files Transparency Act.
“I do not have any charter to supervise whether DOJ is meeting its legal obligations” under the law, Engelmayer wrote.
However, the judge made clear that his decision does not close the door on further legal action. He noted that Khanna, Massie, and Epstein’s victims “raise legitimate concerns about whether DOJ is faithfully complying with federal law” and said the lawmakers are free to pursue a separate lawsuit over the matter.
The Epstein Files Transparency Act, authored by Khanna and Massie, became law late last year and required the Justice Department to release its unclassified Epstein-related files by Dec. 19. The DOJ has since acknowledged that it is reviewing millions of documents connected to Epstein and his associates, but only a small portion of material has been released so far.
The lawmakers have accused the department of slow-walking the process and excessively redacting information. They have also alleged that DOJ has withdrawn documents it previously made public and has improperly blamed the courts for delays and redactions.
According to their court filings, Khanna and Massie argue that the Justice Department has cited judicial requirements as the reason for withholding information, when courts have merely instructed DOJ to ensure that released materials do not improperly identify victims. They contend the department has repeatedly failed to meet the law’s disclosure requirements.
