A federal judge is ordering the Department of Justice to turn over unredacted versions of some of the files related to the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein or explain why the materials were withheld. 

U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan sided with an independent journalist who sued over the withheld materials, concluding that the Trump administration likely violated the terms of the Epstein Files Transparency Act. 

The Department of Justice has until July 2 to either turn over the documents with less redactions — namely identifying the sender and recipient of some emails and the names of co-conspirators included in a draft indictment — or explain “why the redactions should not be removed.”

He also ordered the Department of Justice to publish a log detailing all the redactions. 

Among the documents included in the ruling, Judge Sullivan ordered the DOJ to hand over the underlying notes from the FBI’s interview with a woman who accused President Donald Trump of assault. Those claims were uncorroborated, and Trump has denied the allegations. The DOJ has released the interview reports from some of those interviews, but not the underlying notes. 

The Trump administration also was ordered to reveal the sender and recipients of a series of emails that reference the recruiting of young women.  

“The key are the 14 to 15 year old girls–i am a sexual pervert because i say they are now of a reproductive age?” said one email sent to Epstein in 2015. “My heart goes out to you brother … being called a sexual pervert is no fun.” 

“She is like Lolita from Nabokov , femme miniature 🙂 So now I should send you her type of candidates only,” another email, sent to Epstein in 2017 said.

Judge Sullivan rejected the DOJ’s arguments against releasing the materials and concluded that the Public Integrity Project, a public interest law firm, demonstrated that independent journalist Katie Phang was harmed by the materials being withheld. 

“The Court concludes that Ms. Phang satisfies the second part of the test: she is suffering the type of harm–lack of transparency–that Congress sought to prevent by requiring disclosure of the information and the disclosure of the information that Ms. Phang seeks would help her in her work,” the ruling said. 

The Public Integrity Project said that the ruling will ensure “the public will finally get transparency around Jeffrey Epstein and his network.”

“The government ignored a law passed by Congress and then refused to defend its own conduct in court, all for the sake of protecting the rich and powerful,” said Brendan Ballou with the Public Integrity Project. 

The DOJ began releasing thousands of pages of documents related to Epstein late last year, following the release of the Epstein Files Transparency Act.

However, the department faced criticism from some lawmakers who questioned whether the department has violated the act by withholding some materials and missing the deadline to release the files.

In addition, some Democratic lawmakers criticized what they called “completely unnecessary redactions” in some of the files and said the DOJ had failed to redact the names of some victims.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has stated repeatedly that the DOJ has complied with the law, even as he has acknowledged that the department continues to withhold millions of more pages that he says aren’t relevant to the law’s demands — either because they are duplicates or contain explicit material.

In April, the DOJ’s internal watchdog announced it was launching an audit into DOJ’s compliance with the law.