State Attorneys General Want Power to Sue Over Withheld Epstein Files

Seventeen state attorneys general are urging Congress to let states and Jeffrey Epstein's survivors sue the US Justice Department over allegedly withheld investigative records.

In a letter dated 15 October 2026 and publicised by Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison on 16 October, the coalition backed legislation establishing a direct route to federal court.

The proposal follows disputes over compliance with a December 2025 disclosure deadline. It remains pending, meaning the proposed enforcement rights are not yet law.

Why Attorneys General Say Epstein Files Remain Withheld

The original Epstein Files Transparency Act, enacted on 19 November 2025, required the Justice Department to publish covered records by 19 December, subject to safeguards including victim privacy.

The coalition alleges that the department released only a limited portion by the deadline and continues to withhold millions of records, including material state investigators say they need.

Its letter to congressional leaders Mike Johnson, Hakeem Jeffries, John Thune and Chuck Schumer cites a Wall Street Journal review reporting that identifying information about at least 43 victims appeared in released documents.

'No federal agency is above the law,' Ellison said in his 16 October statement, urging Congress to provide new enforcement tools. Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes, New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez and Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford co-led the 17-state coalition.

The Justice Department previously maintained that it had fulfilled its disclosure obligations. In January, it announced the release of nearly 3.5 million pages, although the coalition disputes whether that production satisfied the law.

What Would the Epstein Files Transparency Act II Change?

The proposed Epstein Files Transparency Act II, H.R. 9694 and S. 5005, would explicitly permit state attorneys general, authorised state officials, survivors and members of Congress to challenge unlawful delays, redactions or withholding in federal court. The proposed legislation would also require courts to expedite these cases.

Survivors could obtain records concerning themselves, although identifying details about other victims could remain protected. State prosecutors could seek investigative material, including FBI interview reports, for proceedings within their jurisdictions.

The bills would also restrict reliance on certain common-law privileges and apply existing penalties to officials who knowingly conceal or destroy records required for disclosure.

Both measures were introduced on 15 July and remain before congressional judiciary committees, according to the latest available legislative records. Neither has passed Congress.

What Has the Justice Department Said About Compliance?

In Phang v. Blanche, a federal court ruling dated 25 June recorded the attorney general's concession that the department had violated the original Act's disclosure deadline. That concession should not be confused with a judicial finding that every disputed document must be released publicly.

The department's January statement maintained that its production complied with the law. A specific DOJ response to the coalition's October letter could not be verified from publicly available statements.

The attorneys general argue that withheld records obstruct potential state investigations and deny survivors access to information about their abuse. Those claims remain contested.

Being named in an Epstein-related record does not itself establish criminal wrongdoing. For now, the coalition is seeking enforcement powers, while disputes over existing disclosure obligations continue.