U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche looks at his watch as he holds a press conference in the Rose Garden at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., September 15, 2026. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst
A federal judge rejected months of dubious explanations from Attorney General Todd Blanche for missing deadlines and withholding Jeffrey Epstein records, ruling he "failed to comply" with a court rule created by the court as a matter of law.
U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan made the finding Wednesday in an order, one of two he issued in a lawsuit brought by MeidasTouch host Katie Phang, who sued Blanche in April to force the Justice Department to follow the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which requires the department to release most of its Epstein records.
Sullivan first ruled for Phang in June with a preliminary injunction, an early court order giving Blanche a week to release redacted information or explain why he could not, Politico reported.
"The Attorney General has conceded that he is in violation of the Act," Sullivan wrote in that ruling, according to Politico.
"DOJ has produced all responsive documents and will appeal this decision with confidence," a Justice Department spokesperson told Politico, insisting Blanche "has not conceded anything."
Blanche's formal response to the lawsuit was due the next day, June 26, but he never filed one or asked for more time, before or after the deadline, Sullivan noted in the Wednesday order.
"To the extent any deadline was missed, that oversight, while regrettable, was not intentional," Blanche argued in an Aug. 5 filing asking Sullivan to retroactively pause the deadlines and give him 60 days to respond once the injunction dispute is resolved.
Phang countered that the missed deadline was "a calculated decision," citing a department lawyer's statement that responding before the injunction dispute ended "would serve no purpose."
"[Blanche] has failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b) because he has not filed a motion for extension of time to respond to the Complaint," Sullivan wrote.
On Wednesday, Sullivan found Blanche offered "no information" to support the oversight claim and never addressed two of the four factors courts weigh before excusing a missed deadline.
Blanche also claimed the court had not settled basic questions such as whether Phang had the right to sue, an argument Sullivan called "without merit" because he rejected those challenges in June.
But Sullivan's ruling said that Phang "would clearly be prejudiced," or harmed, by the delay Blanche wanted, and he barred Blanche from asking the court to dismiss the case. Blanche's response is due Sept. 24.
In a separate order Wednesday, Sullivan rejected Blanche's reason for never starting a review of Epstein records written in foreign languages, which the judge ordered in June.
Blanche told Congress in January that it "was not practicable" for reviewers to judge foreign-language documents, then argued in July the court should not override "Congress's acceptance" of that explanation.
"[Blanche] cites no authority for the proposition that administrative inconvenience excuses him from meeting his statutory obligations. Nor does he cite any authority for his apparent contention that Congressional silence in response to the January 30, 2026 letter functions as an implied amendment to the [law]," Sullivan wrote.
Sullivan also rejected Blanche's argument that he could withhold handwritten FBI interview notes because they were "substantially similar" to the four typed reports agents based on them, known as FD-302s.
Before an Aug. 13 hearing, Sullivan told Blanche's lawyers to explain why the notes could not be redacted, or blacked out, by hand, but at the hearing a Justice Department lawyer instead said the notes were "duplicative."
"The underlying handwritten notes are not duplicates of the FD-302 interview reports," Sullivan wrote.
Sullivan cited Phang's finding that the department had already released nearly 100 other handwritten interview notes and ordered Blanche to give him the four sets of notes for private review by Sept. 24.
Sullivan refused Blanche's request to pause that review while he appeals the June injunction.
At the Aug. 13 hearing, Sullivan warned the department's lawyers that being held in contempt could harm their careers, recalling how he held prosecutors in contempt in the case against then-Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK), CNN reported.
"That's not a threat. It's a promise. No one's in trouble. I'm just bringing it to your attention," Sullivan said, according to CNN.
Phang asked Sullivan in July to hold Blanche in contempt, partly over the foreign-language records, but the judge wrote Wednesday that such a finding would be "premature" now that Blanche has explained his reasoning.
Sullivan ordered Blanche to begin the foreign-language review by Sept. 24 and wrote that courts can use civil contempt to enforce orders that are "clear and unambiguous."
If Blanche believes the order is unclear, Sullivan wrote, he must ask for clarification by Sept. 21.