A federal judge has officially ordered the Department of Justice to start handing over unredacted documents related to Jeffrey Epstein. Columbia U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan issued a ruling on Thursday mandating the government either release the files without redactions or provide a clear, legally sound explanation for why they’re being held back. According to CBS News, Sullivan has given the government until July 2 to comply with the order. Additionally, he also denied the DOJ’s request that it be given at least seven days, so that the government can decide if it wants to appeal. Politico reported that the judge wrote in his 48-page opinion that Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche had essentially conceded that the department violated the Epstein Files Transparency Act by failing to adequately address the arguments laid out in the lawsuit. The lawsuit in question was filed back in April by independent journalist and legal commentator Katie Phang. She reportedly argued that the way the DOJ has been handling these files is a “brazen, shocking, and ongoing violation” of the federal law that was designed to bring these documents into the light. The government tried to argue that Phang did not have the standing to sue, but Sullivan disagreed. Sullivan struck down both of the DOJ’s arguments Politico reported that Justice Department lawyers argued that the Epstein Files Transparency Act did not include the language that allowed for private lawsuits to enforce its provisions. However, Sullivan pointed out that the Administrative Procedure Act, a federal law that requires agencies to comply with federal statutes, gave Phang the power to pursue it. Per CBS, the DOJ also pointed out that the proper recourse would have been for Phang to file a Freedom of Information Act (FoIA) request. Phang’s team rebutted by pointing out the many instances of denials of Epstein-related requests. Sullivate noted that the agency failed to meet a deadline to explain how it handles the FOIA requests. He thus concluded that Phang was harmed by the materials that were withheld. Katie Phang on the latest in her ongoing Epstein-documents lawsuit: You know what the best part about this order is? It says that Blanche must produce "to the public" — not to just Ms. Fang, but to the public. And this is why I brought this lawsuit. We needed this transparency…— MeidasClips (@MeidasClips) June 25, 2026 “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, per ABC News. The court order reportedly covers some high-profile materials. This includes eight emails where the sender or recipient identities have been blacked out, a draft indictment of Epstein that obscures the names of potential co-conspirators, and a 2019 email that references several individuals whose names were also redacted. Furthermore, the outlet noted that Sullivan ordered the release of the underlying notes from FBI interviews regarding unverified allegations against President Trump. While the Department of Justice has previously released reports summarizing these interviews, they haven’t handed over the original notes. CBS highlighted that one email mentioned in this order involves a “torture video” reference. This particular document, they wrote, sparked a lot of questions earlier this year from Democratic Representative Ro Khanna and GOP Representative Thomas Massie, who were rightfully curious about why the recipient was kept secret. Blanche reportedly suggested that the recipient was Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem, the former CEO of DP World on X, but the redaction remained. However, in that time frame, after Khanna and Massie released some names, the DOJ put out a list of 300 names with no context, triggering the ire of lawmakers. Phang: The DOJ in this case was trying to make a claim that I should just be chasing down this information via FOIA. "Oh, Ms. Fang needs to go and get this via FOIA."But when we filed our reply, we made it clear that FOIA has very specific limitations that would prevent a lot… pic.twitter.com/gpDiywxwX0— MeidasClips (@MeidasClips) June 25, 2026 Per reports, the DOJ has consistently defended its actions by claiming that these redactions are necessary to protect the privacy of victims or to maintain the integrity of sensitive information. However, this argument hasn’t stopped the criticism. As ABC pointed out, some lawmakers called the redactions “completely unnecessary” and pointed out that the names of some victims weren’t protected. After the release of the files, AG Pam Bondi admitted to this mistake. In response to Sullivan’s order, ABC reported that the DOJ spokesperson denied that Blanche “conceded anything.” They said, “Judge Sullivan’s perverse interpretation appears to be focused on driving misleading headlines. This judge is suggesting DOJ violate the law by un-redacting victim names, who as the Department has always explained, sadly became co-conspirators. DOJ has produced all responsive documents and will appeal this decision with confidence.” On the other hand, Brendan Ballou, an attorney for Phang, told CBS, “The government thought that it could ignore its own law and blow off a judge’s order, all for the sake of protecting the very powerful and the very rich. It didn’t work, and now the public will finally get transparency around Jeffrey Epstein and his network.”