A federal judge sharply challenged the Justice Department over unreleased Jeffrey Epstein records Thursday, warning government lawyers that failure to comply with court orders could result in contempt proceedings with lasting professional consequences as questions persist over FBI interview notes, foreign-language documents and redactions.
U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan made the warning during proceedings in Washington involving a case brought by journalist Katie Phang, who is seeking FBI records connected to Epstein and asking the court to remove some redactions concealing names contained in emails involving the late financier.
"The public has a right to know what the hell is going on in this case," Sullivan said during the hearing. "The victims have a right to know. The court has a right to know."
Sullivan told Justice Department attorneys that "the law is still in full force and effect," signaling that the volume of Epstein material already released wouldn't excuse the government from satisfying remaining disclosure obligations.
Among the issues drawing Sullivan's attention were handwritten notes created by FBI agents during witness interviews. The judge questioned why those materials weren't included among the millions of pages of Epstein-related records already made public by the Justice Department.
Sullivan also challenged the government over records written in foreign languages that remained withheld. The questions added another layer to the continuing dispute over what information remains outside the public releases and the legal basis for keeping it there.
The judge separately focused on the Federal Register, asking why the Justice Department hadn't provided a timetable for publishing explanations concerning redactions in the Epstein records, as required by Congress.
Justice Department attorney Andrew Block offered a terse response when pressed further. "I have nothing else to say," Block told Sullivan.
The exchange prompted Sullivan to invoke the prosecution of former Alaska Republican Sen. Ted Stevens, a case that became one of the most consequential episodes involving prosecutorial misconduct during Sullivan's career on the federal bench.
Stevens was convicted on corruption charges in 2008 and subsequently lost his Senate re-election campaign. His conviction was later set aside after evidence emerged that Justice Department prosecutors had withheld information from the defense.
Sullivan spent nearly half an hour discussing the Stevens case during Thursday's Epstein hearing, using it to underscore the obligations government attorneys carry when handling evidence and complying with judicial directives.
"I told the attorneys I had no choice; I was holding each one of them in contempt," Sullivan said, recalling his response to the conduct of prosecutors in the Stevens matter.
Stevens died in a plane crash in 2010. Sullivan told the lawyers that the episode had shaped his approach to Justice Department conduct, particularly when questions arise about whether government attorneys have followed court orders.
Sullivan also recalled his willingness to impose sanctions and pursue referrals for professional discipline. He warned that being subjected to contempt proceedings could leave a mark on an attorney's professional record long after the underlying litigation ends.
"That's not a threat. It's a promise," Sullivan said.
The judge tempered that warning by repeatedly telling the Justice Department attorneys appearing before him that they were "not in trouble." He characterized his comments as an effort to establish clear expectations rather than a finding that the lawyers had already violated an order.
"I'm just putting everyone on the same page," Sullivan said. "I'm just having a conversation."
When Sullivan subsequently invited the attorneys in the courtroom to respond, no lawyer stood to address him.
