Judge Orders Expedited Processing of Records Request Related to Justice Department’s Handling of Epstein Files

Judge Orders Expedited Processing of Records Request Related to Justice Department's Handling of Epstein Files

The Justice Department is facing new scrutiny over the decision to withhold Jeffrey Epstein’s files earlier this year.

A federal judge on Monday ordered the Justice Department to expedite processing a Freedom of Information Act request related to the Trump administration’s decision in July not to release files from the Epstein investigation.

With the Justice Department already facing a December 19 deadline to turn over Epstein files, as mandated by the Epstein Files Transparency Act ruling could shed light on why the Trump administration backtracked on its earlier promise to release the files. a joint FBI and Department of Justice Memorandum in July concluded that “there was no basis to review the disclosure of those materials” and that its review “did not uncover evidence that could support an investigation against unindicted third parties.”

The progressive nonprofit legal organization Democracy Forward filed the lawsuit after the Justice Department “constructively denied its request for expedited review” regarding internal records. according to the rulingincluding whether Attorney General Pam Bondi “misled the American people by claiming that the ‘client list’ was on her desk and ready for review,” and whether the Justice Department “reversed course in the decision to release the Epstein case files out of a desire to cover up the contents within.” Specifically, the FOIA request sought records that could demonstrate that the reported mention of Trump’s name in the files triggered the revocation.

Attorney General Pam Bondi speaks to reporters during a news conference at the Department of Justice, Nov. 19, 2025, in Washington.

Tom Brenner/Reuters

Judge Tanya Chutkan, who oversaw Trump’s criminal case related to his attempt to overturn the result of the 2020 presidential election, ruled Monday that Democracy Forward demonstrated that its request was reasonably tailored to a “matter of widespread and exceptional media interest in which there are potential questions about the integrity of the government that affect public trust,” removing the legal hurdle to ordering expedited prosecution.

“The request for ‘records reflecting all correspondence between Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey Epstein’ is clearly tied to concerns discussed in the media that the Justice Department reversed its position on the disclosure of Epstein’s documents only after Attorney General Bondi allegedly informed the President that his name appeared in the files,” Judge Chutkan wrote.

In the same ruling, Judge Chutkan partially denied Democracy Forward’s request for records mentioning “complainant” and “flight records” – concluding that those terms were too broad – but granted most of its request.

Chutkan ordered both sides to submit a report by Dec. 5 to determine next steps in the FOIA request and lawsuit.

Jeffrey Epstein in Cambridge, Massachusetts, on September 8, 2004.

Rick Friedman/Corbis via Getty Images

Separately, on Tuesday, the Justice Department asked two judges in the Southern District of New York to authorize the release of grand jury transcripts and evidence from the prosecutions of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, ahead of the Dec. 19 deadline for the Justice Department to release Epstein files under the Epstein Files Transparency Act.

U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton, whom Attorney General Pam Bondi appointed to lead an investigation into prominent Democrats associated with Epstein, signed a motion asking judges who oversaw the Epstein and Maxwell cases to approve the release of the grand jury materials, subject to necessary redactions.

“In light of the Act’s clear mandate, the Court should authorize the Department of Justice to release the grand jury transcripts and evidence and modify any preexisting protective orders that would otherwise prevent the Government’s public disclosure of materials required to be disclosed by the Act,” the motion said.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

four + nineteen =