Epstein accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell urges Supreme Court to overturn her conviction
'This case is about what the government promised, not what Epstein did,' Maxwell's attorneys told the justices in a new brief.
Maxwell was sentenced to 20 years in federal prison in 2022 for carrying out a years-long scheme with Epstein to groom and sexually abuse underage girls. She has recently met with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche for questioning amid a political firestorm over the Trump administration's handling of the Epstein files.
Those talks were not mentioned in the latest Supreme Court filing.
'President Trump built his legacy in part on the power of a deal – and surely he would agree that when the United States gives its word, it must stand by it,' Maxwell's attorney, David Oscar Markus, said in a statement. 'We are appealing not only to the Supreme Court but to the president himself to recognize how profoundly unjust it is to scapegoat Ghislaine Maxwell for Epstein's crimes, especially when the government promised she would not be prosecuted.'
In her appeal at the Supreme Court, filed in April, Maxwell argues she should have been covered by a non-prosecution agreement Epstein secured as part of his agreement to plead guilty. The New York-based 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Maxwell, finding that the agreement made with prosecutors in Florida did not bind the authorities in New York.
Maxwell's attorney has argued that appeals courts have taken different approaches to the issue of whether a non-prosecution agreement with the United States is nationally binding. The Supreme Court will likely decide this fall whether to grant the case.
'The government's argument, across the board, is essentially an appeal to what it wishes the agreement had said, rather than what it actually says,' Maxwell told the Supreme Court. 'Of course, if wishful thinking were the standard, the whole NPA would have been thrown out long ago.'
Epstein pleaded guilty in 2008 to state prostitution charges and was indicted on federal sex trafficking charges in July 2019 but died by suicide in prison a month later.
The Trump administration has been defending the charges and conviction at the Supreme Court, even as the Justice Department has met with Maxwell amid the spiraling controversy over the handling of the Epstein documents.
'Petitioner was not a party to the relevant agreement,' the Justice Department told the Supreme Court in a brief filed on July 14. 'Only Epstein and the Florida USAO were parties.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
6 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
N.H. Governor Kelly Ayotte signs bills banning gender-affirming care for minors
Proponents have said the ban is an important way of protecting children from treatments they believe to be harmful and irreversible. But opponents say the new law discriminates against transgender youth, removing treatments they view as life saving, and interfering with doctors' ability to make appropriate medical decisions with families. Get N.H. Morning Report A weekday newsletter delivering the N.H. news you need to know right to your inbox. Enter Email Sign Up Violations of the new law will go before New Hampshire's board of medicine, which can take administrative disciplinary action. Advertisement The new law also allows someone who was harmed by receiving this care to bring a lawsuit against the person who provided the care and violated the law. The new ban comes as legislative efforts targeting transgender people have grown in recent years. Last year, New Hampshire lawmakers passed a bill banning gender-affirming genital surgeries for minors, even though providers have said such procedures are exceedingly rare in New Hampshire. All of the other New England states have laws protecting access to gender-affirming care, according to the Movement Advancement Project, a Colorado-based think tank that promotes equality. Advertisement Some New Hampshire families with transgender children have been warily watching as the bill advanced and, in some cases, have been Republican lawmakers in New Hampshire who championed the ban were encouraged by a But some attorneys say there are still avenues for pursuing a possible legal challenge of New Hampshire's new law. That could include a challenge based on the New Hampshire constitution, arguing that the intent of the law was to harm transgender people, or a challenge on the basis of parental rights, according to Chris Erchull, a senior staff attorney at GLAD law. Ayotte also signed a second bill banning gender-affirming surgeries for minors. The bill explicitly prohibits 'transgender chest surgery' for minors as part of a gender transition. Violating the law is classified as unprofessional conduct and would be subject to discipline by the board of medicine. The law also allows minors to sue for damages if they received such a treatment in violation of the law. And the attorney general can bring a suit to enforce compliance with the law. Amanda Gokee can be reached at
Fox News
7 minutes ago
- Fox News
Federal appeals court weighs Trump birthright citizenship order as admin outlines new details
A federal appeals court will hear oral arguments Friday afternoon in a challenge to President Donald Trump's executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship in the U.S., one of several lower court cases that took shape after the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in June. The three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit agreed this summer to hear arguments in two consolidated cases centered on the matter, O. Doe. v. Trump, and the State of New Jersey v. Trump, joining several other appeals courts in reviewing the legality of Trump's executive order. The hearing comes roughly five weeks after the Supreme Court partially sided with the Trump administration in a case centered on the birthright citizenship order. Justices narrowed when lower courts can issue so-called "universal injunctions" blocking the president's orders from taking effect nationwide. Trump signed his birthright citizenship executive order on his first day in office. It seeks to clarify the 14th Amendment, which states, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." Instead, the language put forth by the Trump administration, and subsequently blocked, would have clarified that individuals born to illegal immigrant parents, or those who were here legally but on temporary non-immigrant visas, are not citizens by birthright. The Supreme Court declined to rule on the merits, instead giving the Trump administration 30 days to outline how it would enforce the order — effectively punting the issue back to the lower courts. So far, the administration hasn't found much success there. A federal judge in New Hampshire issued a nationwide injunction last month blocking Trump's order from taking force, and certified as a class all infants born in the U.S. who would be denied citizenship under the order. Arguments before the First Circuit come just one week after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals also blocked Trump's birthright citizenship order from taking force nationwide. Judges on the Ninth Circuit voted 2-1 to block the order, siding with the Democratic-led states in ruling it unconstitutional. They also ruled it "is impossible to avoid this harm" caused by the order "absent a uniform application of the citizenship clause throughout the United States," prompting them to issue the nationwide injunction. "The district court below concluded that a universal preliminary injunction is necessary to provide the states with complete relief," U.S. Circuit Judge Ronald Gould, writing for the Ninth Circuit majority, said in the ruling. "We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a universal injunction in order to give the states complete relief." It's unclear how judges on the First Circuit will rule. But their oral arguments come days after the Trump administration detailed new specifics on how it plans to enforce its order in question. Guidance from roughly half a dozen U.S. agencies outlines these new requirements for parents. One document published by the Social Security Administration outlines new requirements parents will need to meet to prove their child is a U.S. citizen at birth. "With respect to citizenship, an SSN applicant may currently demonstrate U.S. citizenship by providing a birth certificate showing a U.S. place of birth," a document from SSA said. "Once the EO takes effect, a birth certificate showing a U.S. place of birth will not be sufficient documentary evidence of U.S. citizenship for persons born after the EO takes effect." The policy, which remains halted by the lower courts, is widely unpopular. More than 22 U.S. states and immigrants' rights groups have sued the Trump administration to block the change to birthright citizenship, arguing in court filings that the executive order is both unconstitutional and "unprecedented." And to date, no court has sided with the Trump administration's executive order seeking to ban birthright citizenship, though multiple district courts have blocked it, including in wake of the Supreme Court ruling, from taking effect. This is a developing news story. Check back soon for updates.
Fox News
7 minutes ago
- Fox News
Federal appeals court weighs Trump birthright citizenship order as admin outlines enforcement details
A federal appeals court will hear oral arguments Friday afternoon in a challenge to President Donald Trump's executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship in the U.S., one of several lower court cases that took shape after the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in June. The three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit agreed this summer to hear arguments in two consolidated cases centered on the matter, O. Doe. v. Trump, and the State of New Jersey v. Trump, joining several other appeals courts in reviewing the legality of Trump's executive order. The hearing comes roughly five weeks after the Supreme Court partially sided with the Trump administration in a case centered on the birthright citizenship order. Justices narrowed when lower courts can issue so-called "universal injunctions" blocking the president's orders from taking effect nationwide. Trump signed his birthright citizenship executive order on his first day in office. It seeks to clarify the 14th Amendment, which states, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." Instead, the language put forth by the Trump administration, and subsequently blocked, would have clarified that individuals born to illegal immigrant parents, or those who were here legally but on temporary non-immigrant visas, are not citizens by birthright. The Supreme Court declined to rule on the merits, instead giving the Trump administration 30 days to outline how it would enforce the order — effectively punting the issue back to the lower courts. So far, the administration hasn't found much success there. A federal judge in New Hampshire issued a nationwide injunction last month blocking Trump's order from taking force, and certified as a class all infants born in the U.S. who would be denied citizenship under the order. Arguments before the First Circuit come just one week after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals also blocked Trump's birthright citizenship order from taking force nationwide. Judges on the Ninth Circuit voted 2-1 to block the order, siding with the Democratic-led states in ruling it unconstitutional. They also ruled it "is impossible to avoid this harm" caused by the order "absent a uniform application of the citizenship clause throughout the United States," prompting them to issue the nationwide injunction. "The district court below concluded that a universal preliminary injunction is necessary to provide the states with complete relief," U.S. Circuit Judge Ronald Gould, writing for the Ninth Circuit majority, said in the ruling. "We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a universal injunction in order to give the states complete relief." It's unclear how judges on the First Circuit will rule. But their oral arguments come days after the Trump administration detailed new specifics on how it plans to enforce its order in question. Guidance from roughly half a dozen U.S. agencies outlines these new requirements for parents. One document published by the Social Security Administration outlines new requirements parents will need to meet to prove their child is a U.S. citizen at birth. "With respect to citizenship, an SSN applicant may currently demonstrate U.S. citizenship by providing a birth certificate showing a U.S. place of birth," a document from SSA said. "Once the EO takes effect, a birth certificate showing a U.S. place of birth will not be sufficient documentary evidence of U.S. citizenship for persons born after the EO takes effect." The policy, which remains halted by the lower courts, is widely unpopular. More than 22 U.S. states and immigrants' rights groups have sued the Trump administration to block the change to birthright citizenship, arguing in court filings that the executive order is both unconstitutional and "unprecedented." And to date, no court has sided with the Trump administration's executive order seeking to ban birthright citizenship, though multiple district courts have blocked it, including in wake of the Supreme Court ruling, from taking effect. This is a developing news story. Check back soon for updates.
