Attorney General Todd Blanche is asking the D.C. Circuit to review a federal injunction over the Epstein files while Judge Emmet Sullivan keeps the underlying case moving. The appeal is significant, but it did not erase an Aug. 25 deadline: that date came from an unsigned proposal, not a court order.
The legal fight over the Justice Department’s handling of Jeffrey Epstein records has entered a more complicated phase, with the government now challenging a federal judge’s preliminary injunction while simultaneously facing new questions in the same judge’s courtroom.
Blanche filed what DOJ described as a “protective” notice of appeal on Aug. 24, seeking D.C. Circuit review of Sullivan’s June 25 order in journalist Katie Phang’s lawsuit. The filing openly acknowledges that the appealability of the order is uncertain, while arguing that any injunctive relief contained in it may be reviewed immediately.
The appeal does not, by itself, amount to a reversal, a stay or a finding that DOJ complied with the Epstein Files Transparency Act. And one of the most dramatic claims surrounding its timing that Blanche appealed just before an Aug. 25 production deadline imposed by Sullivan is not supported by the docket.
The Aug. 25 date matters
Understanding what happened requires separating a litigant’s proposed order from an order actually entered by a judge.
On Aug. 20, Phang’s lawyers submitted a four page proposed order asking Sullivan to require DOJ to provide the court with handwritten FBI interview notes by 3 p.m. Aug. 25. The proposal also sought a detailed sworn declaration by Sept. 3 concerning the department’s redaction log.
But the document carries the label “[PROPOSED] ORDER,” and the signature section was left undated. That means it represented relief Phang wanted Sullivan to impose, not a command that had already taken legal effect.
Sullivan instead issued a minute order on Aug. 21 requiring DOJ to respond to Phang’s recent filings by Aug. 27 and allowing Phang to reply by Sept. 3. The public docket therefore points to Aug. 27 not Aug. 25 as the next operative deadline in the district court.
That does not make Blanche’s Aug. 24 appeal unimportant. It does mean the filing should not be described as a last minute escape from an Aug. 25 judicial ultimatum that Sullivan never signed.
The appeal targets a June injunction
DOJ’s notice identifies a specific target: Sullivan’s June 25 order granting Phang preliminary relief.
Phang, an attorney and independent journalist, sued Blanche in his official capacity in April, accusing DOJ of failing to carry out requirements imposed by the Epstein Files Transparency Act. Sullivan granted her preliminary injunction motion after finding that she was likely to succeed on the Administrative Procedure Act claims before him.
The injunction required action on a defined set of disputed materials. Among them were emails with names redacted, records containing potential co conspirator names, handwritten FBI notes underlying four FD-302 interview reports, foreign language records and the redaction justification required by the statute. DOJ could produce specified material or, for certain categories, explain why production was not required.
That distinction is important. Sullivan did not enter a final judgment ordering every Epstein related document released without redactions.
A preliminary injunction provides relief while litigation continues. The underlying case remains open, and the law itself permits withholding or redaction of specified information, particularly material that could identify victims.
DOJ’s new notice likewise does not establish that the June ruling was legally wrong. The department is asking the appeals court to review it. The D.C. Circuit has not yet resolved that request.
Sullivan questioned DOJ’s compliance
The current tension did not begin with the appeal.
On Aug. 6, Sullivan entered an order identifying several areas where he believed the government’s responses remained inadequate after earlier compliance proceedings and his private review of materials submitted to the court.
One involved DOJ’s justification for redacting certain names as victims or potential victims. Sullivan said his July 25 order had required documentation supporting the government’s representations, but DOJ instead supplied assertions about individuals whose counsel had contacted the government.
“The Defendant’s assertions do not comply with the Court’s Order,” Sullivan wrote, explaining that he had asked for documentation supporting those assertions.
That finding was narrower than a conclusion that every challenged redaction was improper. It concerned whether DOJ had supplied the evidentiary support Sullivan specifically required.
The judge ordered the parties to appear for an Aug. 13 status hearing, where the department would have to address those questions along with the continuing disputes over handwritten notes and the redaction log.
Handwritten FBI notes became central
A second conflict involves handwritten notes created during FBI interviews.
Sullivan’s June injunction required DOJ either to produce notes underlying four identified FD-302 reports, with appropriate protections for victims, or show cause why those notes should not be released.
The government responded that it had treated handwritten material as substantially similar to the resulting typed interview reports and therefore duplicative. DOJ also cited a risk of inadvertently revealing victim information because handwritten material can present additional redaction problems.
Sullivan was not satisfied with that explanation.
His Aug. 6 order observed that DOJ had not identified language in the Epstein law creating an exception simply because two documents are substantially similar or duplicative. He also noted that the department acknowledged publishing other substantially similar documents and directed government lawyers to explain why handwritten notes could not be redacted manually or protected by another method.
The issue grew more contentious after the Aug. 13 hearing. Phang’s attorneys filed a notice on Aug. 20 disputing a statement made by DOJ counsel Andrew Block about whether handwritten notes associated with FBI interview reports had previously been released.
Phang’s filing pointed to numerous examples that her lawyers said had already appeared in DOJ’s own Epstein publication. The court has not yet ruled on whether that showing establishes that DOJ’s position was incorrect or what consequence, if any, should follow. Sullivan instead ordered the government to answer the filing by Aug. 27.
The redaction log is another fault line
The fight also reaches beyond individual pages and handwritten records.
Congress included a transparency mechanism in the Epstein Files Transparency Act requiring redactions to be accompanied by written justification published in the Federal Register and submitted to Congress.
DOJ has said it intends to comply with that provision. But Sullivan’s Aug. 6 order noted that the parties disputed when the requirement had to be satisfied, and he told the department to be prepared to explain its timing.
That question matters because DOJ had already publicly declared its broader production obligations fulfilled.
On Jan. 30, the department announced that it had published more than 3 million additional pages, bringing its total release to nearly 3.5 million pages. DOJ also said the production included more than 2,000 videos and 180,000 images and described the release as compliance with the law.
Phang’s lawsuit challenges that conclusion in part by arguing that required materials or disclosure steps remained incomplete.
The distinction between producing millions of pages and satisfying every statutory obligation is at the heart of the litigation. The court is not simply counting pages; it is examining whether particular categories were lawfully withheld and whether Congress’s accompanying disclosure requirements were followed.
What Congress required DOJ to release
The Epstein Files Transparency Act became law on Nov. 19, 2025.
It directed the attorney general, within 30 days, to make covered unclassified Justice Department materials publicly available in a searchable and downloadable format. The law reaches records concerning Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, flight and travel records, investigative material, charging decisions and other specified categories.
Congress did not mandate disclosure without safeguards.
The statute allows withholding or redaction for categories such as personally identifying victim information, child sexual abuse material, appropriately classified national security information and narrowly tailored material whose disclosure could jeopardize an active federal investigation or prosecution.
At the same time, Congress prohibited withholding, delaying or redacting material merely because its release could cause embarrassment, reputational harm or political sensitivity.
That combination explains why the litigation is more complicated than a simple choice between releasing everything and releasing nothing. DOJ can protect information Congress exempted, but the department may have to demonstrate that its redactions fit the law’s permitted grounds.
The same caution applies to the records themselves. A person being named in an Epstein related file does not establish criminal misconduct. Investigative files can contain references to witnesses, acquaintances, employees, officials, victims and other people whose appearance in a document proves nothing beyond the fact that the record mentions them.
Sullivan’s warning raised the stakes
Sullivan’s frustration became unusually visible during the Aug. 13 hearing.
News reports from the proceeding described the judge pressing DOJ counsel over the absence of a firm timetable for the Federal Register material and expressing dissatisfaction with answers he viewed as incomplete.
He also raised the possibility of contempt if his orders were not obeyed, invoking an earlier case in which he held Justice Department lawyers in contempt. That history gave the warning particular weight.
But the procedural status still needs careful wording. Sullivan has not held Blanche in contempt in this case. He has not imposed a contempt sanction, and his comments at the hearing were not a final finding that DOJ violated a nonexistent Aug. 25 order.
The court’s written record shows something more precise: Sullivan has already concluded in an Aug. 6 order that some assertions did not satisfy documentation requirements he had imposed, and he continues to seek answers about the handwritten notes and redaction process.
Those are substantial developments without adding a sanction the judge has not entered.
Blanche’s appeal opens a second track
The Aug. 24 notice now puts the June injunction before another court.
DOJ said the appealability question is “inconclusive,” which is why it described the notice as protective. The department nevertheless invoked the federal statute permitting immediate appeals from certain orders granting injunctions.
That phrasing signals that jurisdiction could become an issue before the D.C. Circuit ever reaches the substance of Sullivan’s order.
The appellate court could ultimately conclude that it has jurisdiction and consider the injunction, determine that some or all of the order is not presently appealable, or address other procedural requests first. The notice itself resolves none of those possibilities.
Just as importantly, nothing in the one page filing says Sullivan’s district court proceedings have automatically stopped.
Absent a stay or another intervening order, the current district court schedule remains relevant. The two proceedings can therefore develop at the same time: an appellate challenge to the June injunction and continuing district court litigation about what DOJ has done in response to it.
Aug. 27 is the next test
The next concrete date in the public district court record is Thursday, Aug. 27.
Sullivan ordered DOJ to respond by then to Phang’s Aug. 20 proposed order and her notice concerning handwritten FBI interview notes. Phang may reply by Sept. 3.
The government’s response could clarify whether its appellate filing changes how it intends to litigate the disputed records, how it answers Phang’s evidence about previously released handwritten notes and what relief it believes Sullivan can still require.
After that briefing, Sullivan can decide what additional order, if any, is warranted. He has discussed contempt as a possible enforcement tool, but contempt is not inevitable. Nor has the court adopted Phang’s proposed Aug. 25 production requirement or the proposed Sept. 3 declaration requirement.
The larger story is therefore not that Blanche escaped a judge’s deadline at the eleventh hour. It is that DOJ is now challenging an injunction at the D.C. Circuit while the judge who issued it continues scrutinizing the department’s explanations in the trial court.
That leaves the Epstein disclosure fight moving on two legal tracks at once and makes Aug. 27, rather than the already passed Aug. 25 date, the next point at which the public record may materially change.
Leave a Reply