Katie Phang sues Todd Blanche over the Epstein files; courts order the Justice Department to start reviewing foreign-language records, and DOJ says she cannot sue
Katie Phang says the Justice Department broke the Epstein Files Transparency Act by not reviewing foreign-language records. A judge ordered the review, and an appeals court refused to pause it on Oct. 28. DOJ says she cannot sue.
Case period:
Published by The Dispute Index editorial teamPublished Updated
Overview
Journalist and lawyer Katie Phang says the Justice Department has not complied with the Epstein Files Transparency Act. Judge Emmet G. Sullivan ordered the department to begin reviewing foreign-language records it had set aside, and the D.C. Circuit refused to pause that order on Oct. 28, 2026. The department says the law does not require that review and that Phang has no right to sue.
Read the full background
Congress passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act in November 2025. It required the attorney general to publish the Justice Department's records on Jeffrey Epstein within 30 days, by Dec. 19, 2025, and allowed withholding or redaction only on limited grounds. In a Jan. 30, 2026 letter to Congress, Todd Blanche, then deputy attorney general, said foreign-language materials had not been reviewed or produced because it was not practicable for a first-level reviewer to determine whether they were covered.
Katie Phang, a lawyer and journalist who has reported on Epstein for years, sued Blanche on April 27, 2026 in federal court in Washington. Her complaint says the department missed the deadline, redacted documents improperly and withheld records the law covers. On June 25, Judge Emmet G. Sullivan granted a preliminary injunction that, among other things, ordered the department to initiate review and production of foreign-language materials.
On Sept. 16, Sullivan rejected the department's explanation for not reviewing those materials and set a Sept. 24 deadline to report that the review was underway. He declined Phang's request to hold Blanche in contempt, calling it premature. The department appealed both orders. On Oct. 1 it asked Sullivan for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that Phang lacks standing and a right of action and that the law does not require production of foreign-language documents.
On Oct. 28, a D.C. Circuit panel of Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan and Judges Cornelia Pillard and Florence Pan denied the department's request to pause the review order, finding no showing of irreparable harm from starting the review. The panel left Phang's motion to dismiss one appeal to the judges who will decide the merits, and the order does not require any record to be released.
People in this case
Todd BlancheDirectly involved
Timeline
7 timeline entries on this page. Dates: January 30, 2026 to October 28, 2026
January 2026
Blanche tells Congress foreign-language Epstein materials were not reviewed
In a letter to Congress on the department's production under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, Todd Blanche, then deputy attorney general, says foreign-language materials were not reviewed or produced because it was not practicable for a first-level reviewer to determine whether they were covered.
[01]United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Sullivan's ruling on the parties' responses to his June 25 injunction. It rejects the department's explanation for not reviewing foreign-language materials, declines to hold Blanche in civil contempt as premature, and orders the department to report by Sept. 24, 2026 that the review is underway.
Memorandum Opinion and Order on the responses to the June 25 injunction, Phang v. Blanche, No. 26-1417 (D.D.C. Sept. 16, 2026), ECF 43 · United States District Court for the District of ColumbiaECF 43, pages 13 to 16 (foreign-language materials) and page 19 (order)
April 2026
Katie Phang sues Todd Blanche over compliance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act
Claim
Phang files suit in federal court in Washington against Blanche, then acting attorney general, saying the department missed the law's Dec. 19, 2025 deadline, redacted documents improperly and withheld covered records.
[02]Katie Phang
Katie Phang's complaint against Todd Blanche, sued in his official capacity as acting attorney general, filed by her lawyers in federal court in Washington under the Administrative Procedure Act. It says the Justice Department has not complied with the Epstein Files Transparency Act and asks the court to order full compliance.
Complaint, Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C. filed Apr. 27, 2026), ECF 1 · Katie PhangECF 1, introduction (paragraphs 1 to 9)
June 2026
Judge Sullivan grants Phang a preliminary injunction
Judge Emmet G. Sullivan grants Phang's motion. His order directs the department to produce or justify specific redactions and withholdings, initiate review and production of foreign-language materials, and publish a redaction log or show cause why it cannot.
[03]United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Judge Emmet G. Sullivan's opinion granting Phang's motion for a preliminary injunction. The accompanying order (ECF 15) directed the department to produce or justify specific redactions and withholdings and to initiate review and production of foreign-language materials.
Memorandum Opinion granting preliminary injunction, Phang v. Blanche, No. 26-1417 (D.D.C. June 25, 2026), ECF 16 · United States District Court for the District of ColumbiaECF 16, Memorandum Opinion signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan[01]United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Sullivan's ruling on the parties' responses to his June 25 injunction. It rejects the department's explanation for not reviewing foreign-language materials, declines to hold Blanche in civil contempt as premature, and orders the department to report by Sept. 24, 2026 that the review is underway.
Memorandum Opinion and Order on the responses to the June 25 injunction, Phang v. Blanche, No. 26-1417 (D.D.C. Sept. 16, 2026), ECF 43 · United States District Court for the District of ColumbiaECF 43, pages 13 to 16 (foreign-language materials) and page 19 (order)
September 2026
Sullivan rejects the department's reason for not reviewing foreign-language records
Sullivan finds the department's rationale without merit, declines to hold Blanche in civil contempt as premature, and orders the department to report by Sept. 24, 2026 that the review of foreign-language materials is underway.
[01]United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Sullivan's ruling on the parties' responses to his June 25 injunction. It rejects the department's explanation for not reviewing foreign-language materials, declines to hold Blanche in civil contempt as premature, and orders the department to report by Sept. 24, 2026 that the review is underway.
Memorandum Opinion and Order on the responses to the June 25 injunction, Phang v. Blanche, No. 26-1417 (D.D.C. Sept. 16, 2026), ECF 43 · United States District Court for the District of ColumbiaECF 43, pages 13 to 16 (foreign-language materials) and page 19 (order)Sullivan denies a partial stay but pauses the deadline for an appeal
Sullivan denies the department's motion for a partial stay, saying it failed to confer with Phang's lawyers as the local rule requires and that he would deny it on the merits as well. He temporarily stays the Sept. 24 deadline while the department asks the D.C. Circuit for a stay.
[04]United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Sullivan denies the department's motion for a partial stay of the Sept. 16 order, saying it did not confer with Phang's lawyers as the court's local rule requires and that he would deny it on the merits as well. He temporarily stays the Sept. 24 deadline while the department asks the D.C. Circuit for a stay.
Order denying partial stay pending appeal, Phang v. Blanche, No. 26-1417 (D.D.C. Sept. 21, 2026), ECF 49 · United States District Court for the District of ColumbiaECF 49, pages 1 to 5
October 2026
Justice Department asks for judgment on the pleadings
Claim
The department argues that Phang has no right of action or standing to enforce the law and that the law does not require production of foreign-language documents.
[05]United States Department of Justice
The department's brief asking Sullivan to enter judgment for Blanche. It argues that the law gives Phang no private right of action, that she lacks standing because her suit advances a generalized grievance, and that the law does not require production of foreign-language documents.
Memorandum in support of the Justice Department's motion for judgment on the pleadings, Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-1417 (D.D.C. Oct. 1, 2026), ECF 52-1 · United States Department of JusticeECF 52-1, Argument sections I(b) (standing) and IV (foreign-language documents), pages 11 to 25D.C. Circuit denies the department's request to pause the review order
A panel of Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan and Judges Cornelia Pillard and Florence Pan finds the department has not shown it is irreparably harmed by initiating review of foreign-language documents. It refers Phang's motion to dismiss one appeal to the merits panel.
[06]Federal appeals court rejects DOJ bid to halt review of foreign-language Epstein files
IBTimes report on the D.C. Circuit's Oct. 28, 2026 order denying the department's motion for a stay pending appeal, with quotations from the unsigned order of Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan and Judges Cornelia Pillard and Florence Pan and background on the case.
Claims
Claims separate what was said from what is contested. Follow each source for the original wording and context.
What's disputed
Disputed claim
The Justice Department has violated the Epstein Files Transparency Act by missing its Dec. 19, 2025 production deadline, redacting documents improperly and withholding records the law requires it to publish.
What is disputed
The department says it has complied with the law, that the law does not require it to review and produce foreign-language documents and that Phang has no right to enforce the law in court. Judge Sullivan has ruled for Phang on the specific items in her preliminary-injunction motion, and the department has appealed.
Sources (2)
- Complaint, Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C. filed Apr. 27, 2026), ECF 1 · Katie PhangECF 1, introduction (paragraphs 1 to 9)
- Memorandum Opinion and Order on the responses to the June 25 injunction, Phang v. Blanche, No. 26-1417 (D.D.C. Sept. 16, 2026), ECF 43 · United States District Court for the District of ColumbiaECF 43, pages 13 to 16 (foreign-language materials) and page 19 (order)
Disputed claim
United States Department of Justice
The Epstein Files Transparency Act does not require the Justice Department to review and produce foreign-language documents, and Phang has no standing or right of action to enforce the law.
What is disputed
Judge Sullivan rejected the department's explanation for not reviewing foreign-language materials on Sept. 16, 2026. On Oct. 28 the D.C. Circuit denied a stay of his review order but has not decided the appeals.
Sources (2)
- Memorandum in support of the Justice Department's motion for judgment on the pleadings, Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-1417 (D.D.C. Oct. 1, 2026), ECF 52-1 · United States Department of JusticeECF 52-1, Argument sections I(b) (standing) and IV (foreign-language documents), pages 11 to 25
Response record
Responses
Choose one response filter, or select All responses to see the full record.
2 matching responses. Newest first.
United States Department of JusticeU.S. Department of Justice, in a brief filed for Attorney General Todd BlancheDirectly involvedBefore this statement
The brief says the law contains no specific commands on reviewing and producing foreign-language documents, that producing them would require immense department resources, and that the department told Congress such production was not practicable. It argues that because Congress has taken no further action on these documents, Congress appears to consider the department's obligations fulfilled.
"As such, Defendant has complied with the EFTA's requirements regarding foreign language documents because the law is silent on the issue documents and vests the Attorney General with discretion in redacting and withholding documents."
Defended or excusedResponding to: The Epstein Files Transparency Act does not require the Justice Department to review and produce foreign-language documents, and Phang has no standing or right of action to enforce the law.
Full statement and sources
In a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the department argues that the law says nothing specific about foreign-language documents and gives the attorney general discretion to redact and withhold, so it has complied.
After the statement
The brief then asks the court to enter judgment for the defendant on the relevant claims. In an earlier section, it argues that Phang lacks standing because her suit advances a generalized grievance that the government is not complying with the law.
Memorandum in support of the Justice Department's motion for judgment on the pleadings, Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-1417 (D.D.C. Oct. 1, 2026), ECF 52-1 · United States Department of JusticeECF 52-1, Argument sections I(b) (standing) and IV (foreign-language documents), pages 11 to 25Why this label?
The reference point is the Justice Department's handling of the Epstein files under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, including its decision not to review foreign-language records, as challenged in Phang's lawsuit. The filing defends the department's decision not to review and produce those records, saying it complied with the law.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Katie PhangPlaintiff in Phang v. Blanche, writing in her newsletterDirectly involved Before this statement
Phang recounts an exchange at the status hearing in which, she writes, the department's lawyer did not say when the review of foreign-language documents had begun. She writes that her work as an investigative journalist relies on those documents being translated and produced, and describes reporting on Epstein's ties to modeling agencies in France.
"Why is the Trump Department of Justice participating in an active concealment and cover-up?"
CondemnedResponding to: The Justice Department has violated the Epstein Files Transparency Act by missing its Dec. 19, 2025 production deadline, redacting documents improperly and withholding records the law requires it to publish.
Full statement and sources
Writing two days after a status hearing in her lawsuit, Phang says the department has not begun translating and reviewing the foreign-language Epstein documents and asks why it is taking part in a concealment and cover-up.
After the statement
She goes on to ask why Blanche will not release the files in compliance with the law passed months earlier, and says she is pursuing the lawsuit aggressively.
Ou sont les documents? (Katie Phang newsletter, Aug. 15, 2026) · Katie PhangFull postWhy this label?
The reference point is the Justice Department's handling of the Epstein files under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, including its decision not to review foreign-language records, as challenged in Phang's lawsuit. Phang calls the department's conduct an active concealment and cover-up, which is a condemnation of that handling.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Sources
(9)
Original text
Complaint, Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417 (D.D.C. filed Apr. 27, 2026), ECF 1
Relevant passage: ECF 1, introduction (paragraphs 1 to 9)
About this source
Katie Phang's complaint against Todd Blanche, sued in his official capacity as acting attorney general, filed by her lawyers in federal court in Washington under the Administrative Procedure Act. It says the Justice Department has not complied with the Epstein Files Transparency Act and asks the court to order full compliance.
- Published
- Accessed
Original post
Norm Eisen post on X about the Justice Department's "generalized grievance" argument in Phang v. Blanche
About this source
Eisen's post responding to the department's Oct. 1 motion, which argues that Phang's suit advances a generalized grievance. It quotes a clip of Phang posted by another account.
- Author
- Norm Eisen
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
Finally: A Judge Orders the Government to Release the Rest of the Epstein Files in a Lawsuit Filed by Katie Phang
Relevant passage: Full post
About this source
Joyce Vance's newsletter post on the evening Sullivan granted Phang's preliminary injunction. It lists what the injunction requires and gives Vance's assessment of the department's compliance with the law.
- Author
- Joyce Vance
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
Ou sont les documents? (Katie Phang newsletter, Aug. 15, 2026)
Relevant passage: Full post
About this source
Phang's newsletter post after the Aug. 13, 2026 status hearing in her lawsuit. She writes that the department had not begun translating and reviewing the foreign-language Epstein documents and explains why she says her reporting depends on them.
- Author
- Katie Phang
- Published
- Accessed
Reporting
Federal appeals court rejects DOJ bid to halt review of foreign-language Epstein files
Relevant passage: Full article
About this source
IBTimes report on the D.C. Circuit's Oct. 28, 2026 order denying the department's motion for a stay pending appeal, with quotations from the unsigned order of Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan and Judges Cornelia Pillard and Florence Pan and background on the case.
- Author
- Stephanie Cruz
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
Memorandum in support of the Justice Department's motion for judgment on the pleadings, Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-1417 (D.D.C. Oct. 1, 2026), ECF 52-1
Relevant passage: ECF 52-1, Argument sections I(b) (standing) and IV (foreign-language documents), pages 11 to 25
About this source
The department's brief asking Sullivan to enter judgment for Blanche. It argues that the law gives Phang no private right of action, that she lacks standing because her suit advances a generalized grievance, and that the law does not require production of foreign-language documents.
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
Order denying partial stay pending appeal, Phang v. Blanche, No. 26-1417 (D.D.C. Sept. 21, 2026), ECF 49
Relevant passage: ECF 49, pages 1 to 5
About this source
Sullivan denies the department's motion for a partial stay of the Sept. 16 order, saying it did not confer with Phang's lawyers as the court's local rule requires and that he would deny it on the merits as well. He temporarily stays the Sept. 24 deadline while the department asks the D.C. Circuit for a stay.
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
Memorandum Opinion and Order on the responses to the June 25 injunction, Phang v. Blanche, No. 26-1417 (D.D.C. Sept. 16, 2026), ECF 43
Relevant passage: ECF 43, pages 13 to 16 (foreign-language materials) and page 19 (order)
About this source
Sullivan's ruling on the parties' responses to his June 25 injunction. It rejects the department's explanation for not reviewing foreign-language materials, declines to hold Blanche in civil contempt as premature, and orders the department to report by Sept. 24, 2026 that the review is underway.
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
Memorandum Opinion granting preliminary injunction, Phang v. Blanche, No. 26-1417 (D.D.C. June 25, 2026), ECF 16
Relevant passage: ECF 16, Memorandum Opinion signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan
About this source
Judge Emmet G. Sullivan's opinion granting Phang's motion for a preliminary injunction. The accompanying order (ECF 15) directed the department to produce or justify specific redactions and withholdings and to initiate review and production of foreign-language materials.
- Published
- Accessed
Share or embed this case
The embed keeps its attribution link to The Dispute Index. Credit the image to The Dispute Index and link to the case page.
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- Katie Phang sues Todd Blanche over the Epstein files; courts order the Justice Department to start reviewing foreign-language records, and DOJ says she cannot sue
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/cases/katie-phang-v-blanche-epstein-files-foreign-language-records
The Dispute Index. "Katie Phang sues Todd Blanche over the Epstein files; courts order the Justice Department to start reviewing foreign-language records, and DOJ says she cannot sue". First published: 2026-11-03. Last updated: 2026-11-03. https://disputeindex.com/cases/katie-phang-v-blanche-epstein-files-foreign-language-records