Latest news with #federalCourt
The Guardian
20-07-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
US justice department asks to unseal grand jury transcripts in Epstein case
The US Department of Justice asked a federal court on Friday to unseal grand jury transcripts in Jeffrey Epstein's case at the direction of Donald Trump amid a firestorm over the administration's handling of records related to the wealthy financier. The move – coming a day after a Wall Street Journal story put a spotlight on Trump's relationship with Epstein – seeks to contain a growing controversy that has engulfed the administration since it announced that it would not be releasing more government files from Epstein's sex trafficking case. Todd Blanche, the US deputy attorney general, filed motions urging the court to unseal the Epstein transcripts as well as those in the case against British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, who was convicted of luring teenage girls to be sexually abused by Epstein. Epstein killed himself in 2019 shortly after his arrest while awaiting trial. The justice department's announcement that it would not be making public any more Epstein files enraged parts of Trump's base in part because members of his own administration had hyped the expected release and stoked conspiracies around the well-connected financier. Trump's demand to release the grand jury transcripts came after the Wall Street Journal reported Thursday on a sexually suggestive letter that the newspaper says bore Trump's name and was included in a 2003 album for Epstein's 50th birthday. The letter bearing Trump's name includes text framed by the outline of what appears to be a hand-drawn naked woman and ends with, 'Happy Birthday – and may every day be another wonderful secret,' according to the newspaper. The outlet described the contents of the letter but did not publish a photo showing it entirely. Trump denied writing the letter, calling it 'false, malicious, and defamatory' and promised to sue. Trump said he spoke to both to the paper's owner, Rupert Murdoch, and its top editor, Emma Tucker, and told them the letter was 'fake'. 'These are not my words, not the way I talk. Also, I don't draw pictures,' the president wrote on social media. The justice department said in the court filings that it will work with with prosecutors in New York to make appropriate redactions of victim-related information and other personally identifying information before transcripts are released. 'Transparency in this process will not be at the expense of our obligation under the law to protect victims,' Blanche wrote. But despite the new push to release the grand jury transcripts, the administration has not announced plans to reverse course and release other evidence in its possession. Pam Bondi, the US attorney general, had hyped the release of more materials after the first Epstein files disclosure in February sparked outrage because it contained no new revelations. A judge would have to approve the release of the grand jury transcripts, and it's likely to be a lengthy process to decide what can become public and to make redactions to protect sensitive witness and victim information. The records would show testimony of witnesses and other evidence that was presented by prosecutions during the secret grand jury proceedings, when a panel decides whether there is enough evidence to bring an indictment, or a formal criminal charge.
Fox News
19-07-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
Justice Department moves to unseal Epstein, Maxwell grand jury transcripts amid calls for transparency
At Attorney General Pam Bondi's direction, the Department of Justice (DOJ) on Friday formally moved to unseal long-secret grand jury transcripts from the Jeffrey Epstein case, citing what it called intense public interest in the notorious sex trafficking investigation. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche submitted the motion in Manhattan federal court, urging a judge to release the transcripts from Epstein's 2019 grand jury proceedings and those from the prosecution of Epstein's convicted associate, Ghislaine Maxwell, as part of a new transparency push by the department. Earlier this month, the DOJ and FBI issued a memorandum describing an "exhaustive review" of their Epstein investigative files. That internal review sought to determine if any evidence could justify charging additional individuals, but it concluded that "no such evidence was uncovered" against any uncharged third parties. Since the memo's July 6 release, officials say, public interest in its conclusions has remained high. While the department maintains it stands by the memo's findings, the filing emphasizes that "transparency to the American public is of the utmost importance to this Administration." Given the intense public interest, the DOJ told the court it is moving to unseal the underlying grand jury transcripts to shed light on its investigative work in the Epstein matter. The DOJ said it will work with prosecutors to redact all victim names and personal identifying information from the transcripts before any release. "Transparency in this process will not be at the expense of our obligation under the law to protect victims," the motion assured. Epstein, 66, was indicted by a New York grand jury July 2, 2019, on sex trafficking charges. Just over a month later, on Aug. 10, 2019, he died by suicide in his jail cell while awaiting trial, and the case was PATHWAY CLEARLY EXISTS FOR TRUMP'S REQUEST TO MAKE EPSTEIN GRAND JURY TESTIMONY PUBLIC Epstein's longtime confidant, Ghislaine Maxwell, was indicted by a grand jury in 2020 on multiple counts related to trafficking and coercing minors. She was convicted in December 2021 and sentenced to 20 years in prison. Maxwell's convictions were upheld on appeal in 2024, and she is petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court to review her case. Grand jury proceedings are ordinarily secret by law, or as the motion says, "a tradition of law that proceedings before a grand jury shall generally remain secret." But the filing notes this tradition "is not absolute." Federal courts have recognized "certain 'special circumstances'" where releasing grand jury records is appropriate even outside the usual exceptions, like when a case holds significant public or historical importance. The DOJ argues Epstein's case is exactly such a special circumstance given its unparalleled notoriety. "Public officials, lawmakers, pundits, and ordinary citizens remain deeply interested and concerned about the Epstein matter," the motion notes. The motion points out that a Florida judge last year ordered the release of some Epstein grand jury records after concluding the financier was "the most infamous pedophile in American history" and that the facts of Epstein's case "tell a tale of national disgrace." By the DOJ's account, the sealed grand jury transcripts are "critical pieces of an important moment in our nation's history," and "[t]he time for the public to guess what they contain should end." The motion stresses that Epstein's death means any privacy interests on his side are now "substantially diminished." And even though Maxwell is still fighting her conviction, prosecutors said the extraordinary public scrutiny around the Epstein saga justifies pressing ahead with unsealing now. For these reasons, the DOJ is urging the court to conclude that the Epstein and Maxwell cases qualify as matters of public interest and to grant the unsealing of the grand jury transcripts while lifting any protective orders. The unsealing would shine unprecedented light on one of America's most notorious criminal cases, a move the department says is legally justified and necessary in the name of public accountability. The DOJ did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment.
The Guardian
19-07-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
US justice department asks to unseal grand jury transcripts in Epstein case
The US Department of Justice asked a federal court on Friday to unseal grand jury transcripts in Jeffrey Epstein's case at the direction of Donald Trump amid a firestorm over the administration's handling of records related to the wealthy financier. The move – coming a day after a Wall Street Journal story put a spotlight on Trump's relationship with Epstein – seeks to contain a growing controversy that has engulfed the administration since it announced that it would not be releasing more government files from Epstein's sex trafficking case. Todd Blanche, the US deputy attorney general, filed motions urging the court to unseal the Epstein transcripts as well as those in the case against British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, who was convicted of luring teenage girls to be sexually abused by Epstein. Epstein killed himself in 2019 shortly after his arrest while awaiting trial. The justice department's announcement that it would not be making public any more Epstein files enraged parts of Trump's base in part because members of his own administration had hyped the expected release and stoked conspiracies around the well-connected financier. Trump's demand to release the grand jury transcripts came after the Wall Street Journal reported Thursday on a sexually suggestive letter that the newspaper says bore Trump's name and was included in a 2003 album for Epstein's 50th birthday. The letter bearing Trump's name includes text framed by the outline of what appears to be a hand-drawn naked woman and ends with, 'Happy Birthday – and may every day be another wonderful secret,' according to the newspaper. The outlet described the contents of the letter but did not publish a photo showing it entirely. Trump denied writing the letter, calling it 'false, malicious, and defamatory' and promised to sue. Trump said he spoke to both to the paper's owner, Rupert Murdoch, and its top editor, Emma Tucker, and told them the letter was 'fake'. 'These are not my words, not the way I talk. Also, I don't draw pictures,' the president wrote on social media. The justice department said in the court filings that it will work with with prosecutors in New York to make appropriate redactions of victim-related information and other personally identifying information before transcripts are released. 'Transparency in this process will not be at the expense of our obligation under the law to protect victims,' Blanche wrote. But despite the new push to release the grand jury transcripts, the administration has not announced plans to reverse course and release other evidence in its possession. Pam Bondi, the US attorney general, had hyped the release of more materials after the first Epstein files disclosure in February sparked outrage because it contained no new revelations. A judge would have to approve the release of the grand jury transcripts, and it's likely to be a lengthy process to decide what can become public and to make redactions to protect sensitive witness and victim information. The records would show testimony of witnesses and other evidence that was presented by prosecutions during the secret grand jury proceedings, when a panel decides whether there is enough evidence to bring an indictment, or a formal criminal charge.
Bloomberg
18-07-2025
- Politics
- Bloomberg
DOJ Asks Judge to Unseal Epstein Grand Jury Transcripts
By and Chris Dolmetsch Save The Trump administration asked a federal court to unseal grand jury transcripts related to the case of late, disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein following a torrent of criticism that government officials were hiding documents and information. Justice Department lawyers made the requests to a federal court in Manhattan on Friday.
Yahoo
15-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
The Supreme Court just handed Trump his biggest victory of his second term
The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the Trump administration may fire more than half of the Department of Education's workforce — mass terminations that, in Education Secretary Linda McMahon's words, are 'the first step on the road to a total shutdown' of the entire department. The Court's decision in McMahon v. New York, was handed down on the Court's 'shadow docket,' a mix of emergency motions and other expedited matters that the justices often decide without full briefing or oral argument. As is often the case in shadow docket decisions, none of the Republican justices explained their decision. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissent, which was joined by both of her fellow Democratic justices. Technically, the Court's decision in McMahon is temporary — it permits the Trump administration to fire most of the Education Department's workers while this lawsuit is still pending in federal court. But it is far from clear how the Education Department could unwind a decision to fire more than half of its over 4,000 employees. The McMahon decision is particularly unnerving because it suggests that President Donald Trump is allowed to 'impound' federal spending — unilaterally refusing to spend money or to continue federal programs that are mandated by an act of Congress. While McMahon does not explicitly authorize impoundment, it allows the Trump administration to fire so many federal workers, in so many key roles, that the practical effect is to cancel entire federal programs. Impoundment is unconstitutional, and even some of the Court's Republicans have previously said as much. As Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in a 2013 opinion when he was still a lower court judge, 'even the President does not have unilateral authority to refuse to spend the funds. Instead, the President must propose the rescission of funds, and Congress then may decide whether to approve a rescission bill.' If the president had the power to impound funds, he could effectively cancel any federal law by cutting off the spending authorized by that law or cutting off the money necessary to enforce it. Until recently, the argument that the president may impound funds was considered so ridiculous that even Republican legal luminaries rejected it out of hand. As future Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote in a 1969 Justice Department memo, 'it is in our view extremely difficult to formulate a constitutional theory to justify a refusal by the President to comply with a congressional directive to spend.' The plaintiffs in McMahon, a coalition of states and a school district which stand to lose funding because of Trump's mass firings, argued that only Congress may abolish an entire federal department, or otherwise cancel federal spending programs that are mandated by federal law. And, as Sotomayor explains in her dissent, the mass firings her Republican colleagues just greenlit effectively destroy many such programs. The Trump administration, for example, seeks to fire 'the entire Office of English Language Acquisition, which Congress tasked with administering the Department's 'bilingual education programs.'' It also seeks to eliminate 'all employees within the Office of the General Counsel that specialize in K–12 education funding and IDEA grants; 7 of 12 regional divisions of the Office of Civil Rights; most of the Federal Student Aid office responsible for certifying schools so that their students can receive federal financial aid; and the entire unit of the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services charged with providing technical assistance and guidance on complying with' the Individuals with Disabilities and Education Act. All of these firings, moreover, are the first step in implementing a Trump Executive Order with a section entitled 'Closing the Department of Education and Returning Authority to the States.' Thus, the Republican justices appear to have ruled that Trump may do indirectly what the Constitution forbids him from doing directly. Even if they will not ultimately permit him to impound the Education Department's funding — thus closing the department by permitting Trump to strip it of all of its money — it appears that the GOP-controlled Court will permit Trump to achieve the exact same outcome by firing the department's employees. Last week, in Trump v. American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), the Supreme Court issued a similar decision reinstating a different Trump executive order which called for mass firings. That order required federal agency leaders to come up with aggressive plans to fire agency employees, but did not provide many details on who will be fired. Significantly, the Court's decision in AFGE split the three Democratic justices. While Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote a dissent saying that Trump cannot engage in a grand restructuring of the federal workforce without congressional approval, Sotomayor wrote a concurring opinion arguing that judicial intervention in the AFGE case is premature. According to Sotomayor, while the executive order at issue in AFGE required agencies to come up with plans for mass firings, 'the plans themselves are not before this Court, at this stage, and we thus have no occasion to consider whether they can and will be carried out consistent with the constraints of law.' Sotomayor, in other words, would have waited for the agencies to release their plans, and then she would have determined whether any of these plans make such deep cuts that they amount to something like an unconstitutional impoundment. The McMahon case, by contrast, presented the same issue that Sotomayor anticipated in her AFGE concurrence. Secretary McMahon has already come up with a plan to fire more than half her department's employees, and that plan was before the Supreme Court. So Sotomayor and her colleagues could determine whether any of these cuts are so deep that they effectively eliminate federal programs mandated by Congress. Now that this issue was properly before the Court, however, Sotomayor's Republican colleagues appear to have come out in favor of impoundment. Because the justices in the majority did not explain their decision in McMahon, it is impossible to determine with any certainty why they ruled in favor of Trump. But Sotomayor's dissent summarizes the Trump administration's legal arguments, and thus offers some window into why this decision may have come down the way that it did. The administration's primary argument was that the plaintiffs in this case lacked 'standing' to challenge the mass firings — before a party can bring a federal lawsuit, they must show that they were injured in some way by the defendant they hope to sue. Trump's lawyers argued that the plaintiffs in this case 'failed to demonstrate an 'actual or imminent' harm fairly traceable to' Trump's executive order. But, as Sotomayor argues, this 'claim is belied by both the record and common sense.' The plaintiffs named several specific injuries that have already resulted from terminations that have already taken place. A state college, for example, 'did not receive recertification for one of its campuses in time for the start of the spring 2025 semester' because the Education Department office that provides that certification was so understaffed. Because of this failure, 'the school was forced to forgo admitting students eligible for federal financial aid, and the total enrollment for the term was less than one-fifth of the expected size, costing the college lost tuition funds.' The Trump administration also argued that its decision to fire many Education Department employees may only be challenged at the Merit Systems Protection Board, a defunct agency that is currently unable to do anything at all because it lacks the quorum it needs to operate. And it argued that the lower court's order swept too broadly. Because the Republican justices did not explain their decision, however, we cannot know which, if any, of these arguments persuaded them. These justices' failure to explain themselves may also have needlessly sabotaged the plaintiffs' case. If the Republican justices believed that these plaintiffs lack standing, for example, their lawyers could have found a different plaintiff or filed an amended complaint alleging additional injuries resulting from the mass firings. If the GOP justices believed the lower court order halting the firings was too broad, that court might still issue a narrower order. Instead, the Court's Republican majority gave the thumbs up to mass firings, without any explanation whatsoever. That decision, moreover, suggests that the Republican justices may fundamentally alter the balance of power between Trump and Congress — effectively giving Trump the unilateral authority to repeal federal laws.
