Judge Warns Attorney General of Contempt Risk in Epstein Files Case

<p>A federal judge warned Attorney General Todd Blanche on September 17, 2026, that he could face contempt proceedings if the Department of Justice (DOJ) fails to comply with an order regarding the release or review of Epstein files.</p><p><strong>Why it matters:</strong> The case could compel the DOJ to release additional Epstein records or remove redactions that a court determines are not permitted under the law.</p><hr /><p><strong>What they're saying:</strong> U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan stated in a 20-page order that a civil contempt charge would be "premature" for now, but warned it could become appropriate if Blanche fails to comply with the court's renewed order.</p><ul><li>"[C]ourts have the inherent power to enforce compliance with their lawful orders through civil contempt," Sullivan wrote.</li><li>"A contempt finding is proper where 'the putative contemnor has violated an order that is clear and unambiguous' and the violation of an order is 'proved by clear and convincing evidence.'"</li></ul><p><strong>Catch up quick:</strong> Independent journalist Katie Phang brought the lawsuit, alleging the DOJ has not released all documents required under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which Congress passed in November 2025.</p><ul><li>Sullivan indicated last month he did not want to initiate contempt proceedings but added that the public "has a right to know what the hell is going on in this case" and that the "victims have a right to know and the court has a right to know." </li></ul><p><strong>Zoom in:</strong> Sullivan ruled that the DOJ provided adequate documentation showing some email redactions were made to protect survivors' privacy.</p><ul><li>However, he stated the department had not provided enough documentation to justify redactions in other emails and ordered it to provide additional documentation for private in camera review — a process in which a judge reviews confidential, sensitive, or privileged documents outside public view.</li><li>The judge rejected the DOJ's assertion that handwritten FBI notes were "properly withheld because they are 'substantially similar to' and therefore duplicative of the typewritten reports." He stated the DOJ's review protocol does not require withholding "substantially similar" records.</li><li>Sullivan also rejected the DOJ's argument for not reviewing foreign-language materials related to Epstein because it was "not practicable for a first-level reviewer to determine the responsiveness of a foreign-language document." </li></ul><p><strong>Yes, but:</strong> Sullivan acknowledged that some redactions covered the names and email addresses of a government attorney and law enforcement personnel, which the DOJ's review protocol requires to be redacted.</p><p><strong>State of play:</strong> The lawsuit is one of several seeking additional transparency or alleging DOJ errors related to the Epstein files, which have generated legal and political scrutiny of the Trump administration.</p><ul><li>Congress has held U.S. attorneys general in contempt before, including Eric Holder during the Obama administration and William Barr during Trump's first administration.</li><li>The DOJ did not respond to Axios' request for comment.</li></ul><p><strong>What we're watching:</strong> A House discharge petition is two signatures shy of forcing a vote on the Epstein Files Transparency Act II, which would enforce and expand the release of remaining DOJ files.</p><ul><li>Retiring GOP Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) is leading the effort, as he did with Act I.</li></ul><p><strong>Go deeper:</strong> <a href="https://www.axios.com/2026/09/15/house-republicans-epstein-files-thomas-massie" target="_blank">House GOP's Epstein files headache is back</a></p>