A federal judge has cleared the way for the Justice Department to release grand jury materials and other previously sealed evidence from the criminal case of Ghislaine Maxwell, in compliance with the newly enacted Epstein Transparency Act.
U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer ruled that the law “unambiguously applies” to the discovery materials prosecutors provided to Maxwell’s defense. His order modifies the existing protective order to allow public release of records, while requiring strict safeguards to protect victims’ identities and privacy.
Maxwell, serving a 20-year sentence for aiding Jeffrey Epstein’s abuse of underage girls, saw much of the case file become public during her 2021 trial. But a significant amount of evidence—such as search warrant applications, travel and financial records, photos and videos from Epstein properties, and forensic extractions of electronic devices—remains sealed.
Under the bipartisan transparency law, the DOJ must make all Epstein-related materials public within 30 days, with limited exceptions for victim privacy and ongoing investigations. Engelmayer also added a requirement that the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York personally certify that all files are properly reviewed before release, citing past lapses in notifying victims.
The ruling immediately triggered demands from Congress. Rep. Robert Garcia, the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, urged the DOJ to hand over the files, noting the committee already has a subpoena for all Epstein and Maxwell investigative records.
The judge also found that the transparency law overrides traditional grand jury secrecy rules, clearing the path for broad disclosure. He is now the second federal judge to do so in recent days, following a similar ruling in Florida involving Epstein’s earlier federal case. A third judge in New York is weighing another request tied to Epstein’s 2019 charges, filed shortly before his death in federal custody.
Maxwell’s lawyers warned that releasing untested grand jury materials could prejudice her longshot bid for a retrial, but they did not formally oppose the DOJ’s motion.
For more on this story, stay tuned to Que Onda Magazine.