Phang v. Blanche: A Federal Court Enjoins the Justice Department for Violating the Epstein Files Transparency Act, Over Redactions of Records That Include Material Mentioning Trump

On April 27, 2026, Katie Phang, an attorney and independent journalist who has reported extensively on the Jeffrey Epstein case, filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against Todd Blanche in his official capacity as Acting Attorney General. The case is Phang v. Blanche, Civil Action No. 26-1417 (EGS), docket 1:26-cv-01417. Phang sued under the Administrative Procedure Act, alleging that the Department of Justice had failed to comply with the Epstein Files Transparency Act by improperly redacting and withholding records the Act requires to be made public.

Congress passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act, Public Law 119-38, on November 18 and 19, 2025, by a House vote of 427 to 1 and by unanimous consent in the Senate, and President Trump signed it into law on November 19, 2025. The Act requires the Attorney General, within 30 days, to make publicly available in a searchable and downloadable format all unclassified records in the Department's possession relating to Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and their associates, subject to five permitted grounds for withholding, each of which requires a written justification published in the Federal Register. Section 2(b) provides that "no record shall be withheld, delayed or redacted on the basis of embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity, including to any government official, public figure, or foreign dignitary." The Act also requires a report to Congress listing all government officials and politically exposed persons named or referenced in the released materials.

The Department made productions in December 2025 and on January 30, 2026, when it announced it had published approximately 3.5 million pages and had completed its obligations. No production was accompanied by the redaction log the Act requires. Phang's motion for a preliminary injunction identified five categories of claimed violations: redaction of the names of senders and recipients in at least eight email exchanges with Epstein that the motion describes as "regarding a 'torture video' and sexual activity with young women, including minors"; redaction of the names of co-defendants in a draft indictment and of individuals identified as co-conspirators; withholding of materials mentioning Trump; failure to review or produce any foreign-language materials; and failure to publish any redaction log.

On June 25, 2026, U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan granted the motion in a 48-page memorandum opinion. The court held that the Attorney General had not responded substantively to Phang's arguments and had thereby conceded them, writing, "By not responding substantively, the Attorney General has conceded Ms. Phang's merits arguments in the pending motion." The court further stated that "the Attorney General conceded that he is in violation of the Act." It declined to issue a stay and imposed a nominal bond of one dollar. The relief granted required the Attorney General to show cause why the disputed redactions should not be removed, to review and produce foreign-language materials, and to publish the redaction log that the Act required by December 19, 2025.

Among the materials at issue are, in the opinion's words quoting Phang's motion, "notes from FBI interviews with a victim who has alleged that in the 1980s, when she was about 13 years old, Epstein introduced her to Trump, who in turn assaulted her." This is an allegation contained in investigative records whose redaction is disputed, and it is not a finding by the court. The court decided the motion on the Attorney General's failure to contest it, and it did not adjudicate the truth of any underlying allegation. Reporting after the ruling indicated that the Department declined to remove the disputed redactions by the court's deadline and that the litigation continued.

The ruling is a preliminary injunction, not a final judgment on the merits, and it turned on a procedural matter. The Attorney General did not respond substantively to Phang's specific arguments, so under the district's local rule the court treated those arguments as conceded. The court did not find that the redactions were made in bad faith or for a political purpose, and a fuller merits record could support a different result.

The Department's stated grounds for its redactions were victim protection and privilege. The Act itself permits withholding of victims' personally identifiable information, child sexual abuse material, images of death or injury, and properly classified information, and the Department invoked deliberative-process, work-product, and attorney-client privileges. The Department's January 30, 2026 letter to Congress stated that no records were withheld "on the basis of embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity." The Attorney General also argued that the Freedom of Information Act, rather than the Administrative Procedure Act, was the proper channel for Phang's complaint, an argument the court rejected.

On the allegation involving Trump, the material is a description in a court filing of what redacted FBI interview notes are said to contain. It is an allegation by an unnamed person, recorded in investigative notes, and it has not been tested in any proceeding. The court did not evaluate its credibility, and Trump has denied allegations of assault. The Department's Inspector General separately announced on April 23, 2026 that it had opened an audit of the Attorney General's compliance with the Act, which is the institutional mechanism for reviewing the conduct at issue.

Everything in the factual summary comes from the court's memorandum opinion and the case docket, both primary court records retrieved and read for this entry, or from the text of the Act as the opinion quotes it. The opinion granted a preliminary injunction, which is an interlocutory ruling rather than a final judgment, so the entry is not classified as adjudicated and resolved. It documents what the court found and ordered, not a final determination of the merits. The most sensitive item, the allegation involving Trump, is attributed exactly as the opinion frames it, as a description of contested FBI interview notes contained in Phang's motion, and it is not stated as fact.

Section 3 of this project's standard requires noting the institutional position of the Department of Justice, which as of 2026 has been directed against the administration's political opponents. Here the Department is the defendant, and the interested party is the administration itself. The records the Department redacted include an allegation against the sitting president, the Attorney General is his appointee, and the statute the court found the Department to have violated specifically forbids withholding records to spare a "government official" or "public figure" embarrassment or reputational harm. Whether the redactions were made in order to protect the president is a question the court did not reach and this entry does not answer. What the primary record establishes is that a federal court found the Department in violation of a transparency law the president signed, granted an injunction, and refused to stay it, and that the withheld records include material concerning the president.