Independent accountability journalism

The Radical Reading Room

Follow the claims. Examine the evidence. Read the reporting.

Independent reporting needs independent readers Support the Reading Room →
Skip to the news
News Analysis · October 29, 2026

Appeals Court Rejects DOJ Bid to Halt Epstein Files Review

Permanent article number: 102926013   Find another article by number

By Radical Reading Room Newsroom · Published · From the October 29, 2026 edition

Evidence-based news report Confidence 3/5

Original article being examined

Published by: www.ibtimes.co.uk

Federal Appeals Court Rejects Trump DOJ's Bid to Halt Epstein Files Review, Says Government Failed to Justify the Delay — Read the exact original

Original reporting and source documents

Open the reporting and original documents used for this article. These include evidence sources; not every link is necessarily the original claim being examined.

Evidence and accountability

Archive transparency: this article has not yet completed the site's newer independent fact-audit process. Its source links are provided below. Do not treat allegations, commentary, or a rating as a legal finding.

No verified accountability finding This archive item is sourced reporting, not a finding that a claim is false or misleading.
Correction: Post-publication fact review: Clarified that the October 28 appellate order denied a stay pending appeal, not the underlying appeal on its merits, and that further litigation would address disputed redactions or withholding. This is a transparent editorial correction, not a fresh automatic pass.

Corrections and clarifications

October 29, 2026: Clarified that the October 28 appellate order denied a stay pending appeal, not the underlying appeal on its merits, and that further litigation would address disputed redactions or withholding.

A federal appeals court on 28 October 2026 rejected the U.S. Department of Justice's request to halt a court-ordered review of foreign-language records in the Jeffrey Epstein files. The panel, consisting of Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan and Judges Cornelia Pillard and Florence Pan, ruled that the government failed to demonstrate irreparable harm from initiating the review.

The panel denied a stay pending appeal of a June 2026 preliminary injunction by District Judge Emmet Sullivan that directed the department to begin the review. It did not decide the merits of the underlying appeals. The order explained that the department would produce records it concludes must be disclosed by law; disagreements about particular redactions or withholding could require further litigation.

The government is appealing both the June and September orders. The Epstein Files Transparency Act, signed by President Trump in November 2025, required the DOJ to release records within 30 days, with about 3.5 million pages released by 30 January 2026.

Journalist Katie Phang, who sued the DOJ in April 2026, alleges improper redactions and missing logs. The court found no imminent production of records, and the department’s claims of impracticality in reviewing foreign-language documents were not sufficient to justify a stay.

The panel left the motion to dismiss the September order to the merits judges.

Reporting sources

Sources used for this report

These are the source links stored with this report when it was published. Open them directly to inspect the underlying reporting or primary document.

Reader action

Follow the court record

Read the filed complaint, order, or opinion and follow the docket as the case develops. Share the primary documents when explaining what the court has—and has not—decided.

This card only appears on stories where there is a concrete, lawful, worthwhile step a reader can actually take.

Comments

Read the discussion freely. Posting and voting require a verified member account. Every comment and reply is screened by AI before publication. Clear spam and abuse are blocked; only strongly cleared comments publish automatically, while uncertain drafts wait for moderator review. Civil factual disagreement alone is not grounds for rejection.

Log in to comment or join free to take part.

No comments yet. Be the first reasonably on-topic person here.