Trump DOJ Seeks Dismissal of Katie Phang’s Epstein Files Lawsuit After Court Setback

The Department of Justice, led by Attorney General Todd Blanche, filed a motion on October 1 requesting U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan to dismiss journalist Katie Phang’s lawsuit over the release of Jeffrey Epstein-related files. This move follows a June ruling by Sullivan that granted preliminary injunction relief to Phang, rejecting the Trump administration’s claim that the Justice Department had fully complied with disclosure obligations.

Background of the Epstein Files Lawsuit

Katie Phang initiated the lawsuit under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), asserting that the Justice Department violated the Epstein Files Transparency Act by improperly withholding records, retaining disputed redactions, and failing to provide explanations for secrecy decisions. The department declared its Epstein-files release complete on January 30, having produced approximately 3.5 million pages. However, Judge Sullivan’s June opinion noted ongoing issues with undisclosed records and redactions.

Phang has provided updates on her case exclusively through her podcast, Sidebar with Katie Phang, maintaining public attention on the ongoing legal battle.

Blanche’s Arguments for Dismissal

Attorney General Blanche’s October 1 filing seeks to end the lawsuit at the pleading stage, arguing that Phang cannot prevail as a matter of law. His core position is that Congress intended the enforcement of the Epstein Files Transparency Act to occur through political oversight and reporting requirements, not private lawsuits. Blanche claims that the statute does not create a private right of action for individuals like Phang and that she lacks Article III standing to sue.

Additionally, Blanche asserts that the structure of the statute bars Phang’s APA claims, and contends that the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is the appropriate legal avenue for obtaining government records, a point Phang disputes.

Phang’s Response and Court’s Preliminary Ruling

Phang counters that the Justice Department’s decisions on what to release, redact, or withhold constitute final agency actions subject to judicial review under the APA. She emphasizes that the Epstein Files Transparency Act mandates the attorney general to publish all unclassified Epstein-related records held by the DOJ, FBI, and U.S. attorneys’ offices within 30 days of the law’s enactment.

The statute restricts withholding records based only on five narrow categories and prohibits concealment due to embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity. It also requires written justifications for every redaction to be published in the Federal Register and submitted to Congress.

Judge Sullivan’s June ruling acknowledged these points, granting Phang preliminary relief by recognizing that FOIA exemptions would likely block her from obtaining the unredacted material she seeks.

Ongoing Disputes Over Withheld Records

The Justice Department’s January 30 declaration of compliance did not end the legal conflict. The court’s June opinion highlighted that although the DOJ made multiple document productions in December and January, it failed to provide a privilege log or adequately justify withheld materials. The department invoked privileges like deliberative-process and attorney-client beyond the statute’s permitted grounds.

Phang alleges the DOJ has withheld records outright, neglected to publish required justifications for redactions, and refused to review or produce foreign-language documents responsive to her request. The Epstein Files Transparency Act contains no exception for foreign-language materials and directs full release of all covered unclassified records, except for limited categories such as victim privacy.

Implications of the DOJ’s Motion and Next Steps

Blanche’s motion seeks to close the case before the broader dispute over the remaining records proceeds to discovery or further litigation. The DOJ’s position, if accepted, would limit judicial oversight of its disclosure decisions and place enforcement solely under congressional purview. Phang’s lawsuit challenges this view, asserting that without judicial review, the Justice Department can effectively decide its own compliance.

The court’s decision on Blanche’s motion will determine whether Phang’s fight for full transparency over the Epstein files continues or ends prematurely.

The Epstein files case remains a significant test of transparency laws and government accountability under the current administration.