The Department of Justice has formally opposed Ghislaine Maxwell’s petition to the Supreme Court to overturn her sex-trafficking conviction, arguing that the disgraced British socialite cannot claim protection under Jeffrey Epstein’s controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement. The government’s response comes as Maxwell has reportedly expressed willingness to testify before Congress about her knowledge of Epstein’s activities.
Maxwell, now 63, is serving a 20-year sentence at a federal facility in Tallahassee, Florida, with an expected release date in 2037. She was convicted in December 2021 on five counts related to facilitating Epstein’s sexual abuse of minors between 1994 and 2004.
Maxwell’s petition to the Supreme Court argues that circuit courts have issued conflicting decisions about the scope of non-prosecution agreements and whether they can be enforced across different federal districts. Her legal team contends that “a defendant should be able to rely on a promise that the United States will not prosecute again, without being subject to a gotcha in some other jurisdiction.”
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Maxwell’s argument in September 2024, finding that “nothing in the text of the NPA or its negotiation history suggests that the NPA precluded USAO-SDNY from prosecuting Maxwell”. The appellate court said that established circuit precedent holds that plea agreements bind only the originating U.S. Attorney’s Office unless broader scope is clearly intended.
Maxwell’s attorneys argue that different circuit courts apply varying standards when interpreting references to “the United States” in plea agreements. While some circuits presume such agreements bind only the originating district, others interpret them as potentially binding all federal prosecutors unless explicitly limited.
The DOJ dismisses this claimed circuit split as “of limited importance” because “the scope of a plea or similar agreement is under the control of the parties to the agreement”. Government attorneys argue that context and negotiation history make clear that Epstein’s agreement was limited to the Southern District of Florida.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer filed a comprehensive brief urging the Supreme Court to deny Maxwell’s petition for certiorari, stating that her “contention is incorrect” and that she “does not show that it would succeed in any court of appeals”. The DOJ’s position centers on several key legal principles:
The government argues that Maxwell was not a party to Epstein’s non-prosecution agreement (NPA) and that she cannot assert rights under the agreement as a third-party beneficiary. DOJ attorneys emphasized that “there is no evidence that the parties to the NPA intended for the coconspirators clause to benefit petitioner” and that “the government was not even aware of petitioner’s role in Epstein’s scheme at that time.”
The DOJ contends that the 2007 agreement between Epstein and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida was geographically limited and did not bind other federal districts. The government’s brief states that “a plea agreement binds only the office of the United States Attorney for the district in which the plea is entered unless it affirmatively appears that the agreement contemplates a broader restriction.”
The coconspirators clause in question stated that “the United States also agrees that it will not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein, including but not limited to” four named assistants. However, Maxwell was not among the four women specifically named in the agreement.
The DOJ argues that even if the Florida U.S. Attorney’s Office had attempted to bind other districts, it lacked the authority to do so without proper approval. Under DOJ policy at the time, a U.S. Attorney’s Office could only bind other districts in a non-prosecution agreement if it obtained approval from those districts or the Criminal Division.
The Daily Mail published an article on July 13 stating that Ghislaine Maxwell was reportedly interested in testifying before Congress about her knowledge of Jeffrey Epstein’s activities. As of now, Snopes has not confirmed the accuracy of this claim. However, calls for transparency are intensifying in Washington after Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel released a memo asserting that Epstein did not possess a so-called “client list,” and reaffirming that he died by suicide while in federal custody.
This announcement comes after years of assertions by members of the Trump administration and MAGA-aligned politicians that there existed documents implicating a wide network of high-profile individuals in Epstein’s trafficking operation. Many public figures, including various Republican senators and congressmen, had previously hinted at,or directly claimed, the existence of extensive files or a “client list” that would reveal the names of powerful associates and clients of Epstein.
Now, in light of the DOJ and FBI memo rejecting these longstanding theories, the political conversation has shifted. Lawmakers from both parties, but especially key Republican figures like Senators Josh Hawley, Mike Lee and Thomas Massie, are demanding the release of all remaining Epstein-related files and expressing interest in compelling Maxwell’s testimony under oath before congressional committees. Speaker Mike Johnson has also signaled support for more transparency and has not ruled out backing a congressional hearing involving Maxwell.
While Maxwell herself, through unnamed sources, is said to be “willing and eager” to testify, no official subpoena or committee hearing has yet been scheduled.
The following letter is from Bondi to Patel on Feb. 27, 2005.
