Case: Phang v. Blanche
1:26-cv-01417 | U.S. District Court for the District of District of Columbia
Filed Date: April 27, 2026
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
This case challenges the Department of Justice's alleged failure to comply with the Epstein Files Transparency Act by withholding, redacting, and failing to disclose records related to Jeffrey Epstein and his associates.
A Miami-based lawyer and journalist filed suit on April 27, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the Acting Attorney General. The plaintiff alleged that the Acting Attorney General (AAG) violated the Epstein Files Transparency Act. Specifically, the AAG failed to fully comply with the Act's December 19, 2025 disclosure deadline by improperly withholding, retracting, and redacting records relating to Jeffrey Epstein, his associates, and President Donald Trump, failing to publish the redaction log required by the Act, and otherwise impeding her reporting. The plaintiff asserted an ultra vires claim along with claims under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Declaratory Judgment Act, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief compelling the AAG to comply with the Epstein Files Transparency Act by producing improperly withheld records, removing unlawful redactions, reviewing and producing responsive foreign-language materials, and publishing the redaction log required by the Act, the appointment of a special master to oversee the defendant's compliance, attorneys' fees, and costs. On May 28, 2026, the plaintiff moved for a preliminary injunction. The district court granted the motion on June 25, holding that the plaintiff was likely to succeed on the merits of her APA claims. The court ordered the AAG to either produce specified records with certain redactions removed, initiate review and production of foreign-language materials, and publish the redaction log required by the Act, or show cause why the challenged redactions should remain and why the requested materials or redaction log need not be produced. The court also denied the government's request for a stay. 2026 WL 1831251.
On July 2, the AAG responded to the court's show-cause order, arguing that the challenged redactions were authorized under the Act because they protected victims, law enforcement personnel, and personal identifying information, that underlying FBI interview notes were properly withheld as duplicative, and that the Department should not be required to take further action. The government also represented that it would submit the required Federal Register notice regarding redactions and again requested a stay should the court order additional relief. As of July 2026, the court had not ruled on the government's response, and the case remains pending.
Summary Authors
Benjamin Glicksman (7/22/2026)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73246595/parties/phang-v-blanche/
Sullivan, Emmet G. (District of Columbia)
Ballou, Brendan (District of Columbia)
Gilman, Emily Danya (District of Columbia)
Ward-Packard, Samuel (District of Columbia)
Kalolwala, Saifuddin (District of Columbia)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73246595/phang-v-blanche/
Last updated July 22, 2026, 3:15 a.m.
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: April 27, 2026
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Miami-based lawyer and journalist who covers legal affairs and has reported extensively on Jeffrey Epstein and his network.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Federal
Todd Blanche
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Ex Parte Young (Federal) or Bivens
Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)
Other Dockets:
District of District of Columbia 1:26-cv-01417
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Issues
General/Misc.:
Case Summary of Phang v. Blanche, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/48180/ (last updated 7/22/2026).