Washington, Jan 22
A federal judge in New York rejected a bipartisan request by two US lawmakers, including Indian American Ro Khanna, seeking court supervision of the Justice Department’s compliance with a law mandating the release of files related to the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
US District Judge Paul Engelmayer of the Southern District of New York on Wednesday (local time) denied a request by Reps. Thomas Massie, a Republican from Kentucky, and Ro Khanna, a Democrat from California, to appoint a “Special Master and/or Independent Monitor” to oversee the department’s handling of disclosures required under the Epstein Files Transparency Act.
Engelmayer noted the seriousness of the concerns raised by the lawmakers and victims, writing that the issues “are undeniably important and timely,” and that they “raise legitimate concerns about whether DOJ is faithfully complying with federal law.”
However, the judge said the court lacked authority to grant the relief sought in the context of the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell, which has effectively concluded.
“The Representatives have not articulated how the criminal statutes under which Maxwell was charged would empower the Court to enforce the EFTA,” Engelmayer wrote.
He added that no provision of the law “vests this Court with that authority,” describing the statute as a civil records-disclosure law beyond the scope of the court’s jurisdiction in the closed criminal matter.
Massie and Khanna had argued that the Justice Department failed to meet a mid-December deadline set by the law, did not submit a required report to Congress, and released heavily redacted files.
They also contended that the department improperly withheld records and later retracted some documents that had been made public.
In denying the request, Engelmayer also ruled that the lawmakers could not participate in the case as amici curiae.
He said they were not parties to the criminal proceeding and that appointing a neutral overseer of the Justice Department’s compliance with the statute was “far afield from any matter pending before the Court.”
“Appointment of a neutral to supervise DOJ’s compliance with the EFTA is far afield from any matter pending before the Court,” he wrote, emphasising that amici cannot inject new issues not raised by the parties themselves.
The judge stressed that while the court could not intervene in this way, the ruling did not foreclose other avenues.
“The decision does not opine on whether the lawmakers would have the right to initiate a separate lawsuit,” he noted, adding that “the Representatives are also, of course, at liberty to pursue oversight of DOJ via the tools available to Congress.”
Congress passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act overwhelmingly in November, ordering the release of documents by a December deadline.
The Justice Department released a large batch of investigative records on the deadline date and additional documents afterwards, but lawmakers argue the disclosures still fall short of the statute’s requirements.
The Epstein case has drawn sustained international attention, including in India, where the handling of high-profile abuse cases and transparency in judicial processes are closely watched in the political circles.
Political analysts believe that the outcome of any future congressional or legal action could shape how sensitive investigative records are disclosed in the US, with broader implications for accountability and victims’ rights.
