The law that ordered the Justice Department to publish its Epstein files was signed on November 19, 2025. One part of the Department's collection was set aside without review: documents in languages other than English. On September 16 a federal judge said the Department's reason for that does not hold up, and gave it until September 24 to start. That deadline is now paused while the Department appeals again.

What the judge decided

The case is Phang v. Blanche (No. 1:26-cv-01417, D.D.C.), brought under the Administrative Procedure Act by the journalist Katie Phang against Attorney General Todd Blanche in his official capacity. Judge Emmet G. Sullivan's June 25 preliminary injunction ordered the Department to "initiate review and production of foreign-language materials" by July 2. It did not start. Its response argued that the "Court should not supplant Congress's acceptance of [its] explanation".

The September 16 opinion (ECF 43) rejects that:

The Court concludes that Defendant's rationale for not initiating the review of the foreign language materials is without merit.

The Department, it says, "cites no authority for the proposition that administrative inconvenience excuses him from meeting his statutory obligations", nor for treating "Congressional silence in response to the January 30, 2026 letter" as an implied amendment to the Act. The court called a civil contempt finding "premature" and set a new deadline to start the review and give notice "by no later than September 24, 2026".

The opinion discharged the show-cause order for several redactions and for the redaction-log requirement, leaving open whether the Act permits Privacy Act redactions and whether the Section 3 report satisfies the log provision. It rejected the claim that handwritten FBI notes behind four FD-302 interview reports could be withheld as duplicates: "The underlying handwritten notes are not duplicates of the FD-302 interview reports." It ordered those notes, and documentation for three remaining name redactions, submitted for in camera review by 11:00 a.m. on September 24. A companion order (ECF 42) set the same day for the Department's overdue answer to the complaint.

The number that has not been filed

The Department's January 30 letter to Congress counts almost everything. Collection yielded "more than 6 million pages being identified as potentially responsive". The total released was "nearly 3.5 million pages released in compliance with the Act", and "approximately 200,000 pages have been redacted or withheld based on various privileges."

On foreign-language material it gives no number:

The Department's collection of documents included pages in various foreign languages. Because it was not practicable for a first-level reviewer to determine the responsiveness of a foreign language document, those pages have not been produced.

At the August 13 hearing, according to the transcript excerpt Phang filed in the appeals court, the judge asked: "And how many documents are we talking about?" The Department's lawyer, Andrew Block, answered: "Well, Your Honor, I'm not sure I have the number of foreign language documents."

The Department's September 18 stay memorandum described the task as "the review and production of thousands of documents that are in different foreign languages". Its September 22 motion to the D.C. Circuit speaks only of "documents in various foreign languages". Phang's response there argues that the Attorney General "has never substantiated his assertions about the burdens of review or scope of potential production with any evidence or specifics."

How the pages were set aside

The Department's review protocol, dated January 4 and filed with its Answer, shows the mechanics. First-level reviewers had "five choices for responsiveness tags in the review platform" and were told to "choose only one tag for each document." The fifth was "Foreign language": "apply this tag if a document is in a foreign language".

Under that rule, a document tagged foreign language got no call on whether it was responsive, the question the Act turns on. No filing this desk read reports how many documents carry the tag.

The appeal, day by day

September 17: the Department appealed the September 16 opinion (ECF 44). The D.C. Circuit docketed it as No. 26-5334 and on September 21 consolidated it with No. 26-5299, the Department's August 24 appeal of the June injunction.
September 18: the Department asked the district court to stay only the foreign-language part of the order (ECF 46).
September 21: the judge denied that (ECF 49) because the Department had not first conferred with Phang, as Local Civil Rule 7(m) requires, and said he "would deny it on the merits" anyway. With the deadline close, he held the foreign-language requirement "TEMPORARILY STAYED" so the Department could go to the appeals court. The in camera deadlines stood.
September 22: the Department asked the D.C. Circuit for a stay and to expedite, arguing that Phang cannot sue: "Congress chose not to include a private right of action." Without a stay, it says, the orders "will irreversibly alter the status quo, harm the Department, and potentially moot this appeal". It cites H.R. 9694, a pending bill to let states and victims sue, which "does not address foreign language documents."
September 23: a panel of Chief Judge Srinivasan and Judges Pillard and Pan set Phang's response for September 25, and "Any reply is due by Tuesday, September 29, 2026, at 4:00 p.m."
September 24: the Department's Answer (ECF 50) "categorically denies that it has failed to comply with the Act" and lists nine affirmative defenses, including lack of standing. It does not mention foreign-language documents.
September 25: Phang opposed the stay and moved to dismiss No. 26-5334, arguing that "The September enforcement order imposed no new obligations" beyond the June injunction, and that "The Act does not authorize categorical withholding of foreign-language records".

Meanwhile, elsewhere

On September 16 the House agreed to H. Res. 1543 without a recorded vote. Chairman James Comer asked unanimous consent to take it up, and the Congressional Record states: "There was no objection." The resolution finds Leon D. Black in contempt of Congress for not complying with deposition and document subpoenas issued on June 26, 2026, and directs the Speaker, under 2 U.S.C. §§ 192 and 194, to certify the Oversight Committee's report to the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia. That is a referral, not a charge. Black's own suit challenging the subpoenas (No. 1:26-cv-03084, D.D.C., filed September 3, before Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly) shows no ruling on the subpoenas.

In New York, Ghislaine Maxwell emailed the court a Rule 59(e) motion on September 23, asking Judge Paul A. Engelmayer to alter his August 24 order denying her § 2255 petition. It is not yet docketed: the court "is unable to confirm the total absence of victim-identifying information in the motion and exhibits", and gave the government until October 14 to clear or redact it.

What comes next

Tuesday, September 29, 4:00 p.m.: the Department's reply is due in the D.C. Circuit. No date is set for a ruling.
Within three days of that ruling: a joint notice in the district court "with recommendations for further proceedings".
October 1: the certified list of the administrative record (ECF 42). October 15: the record itself goes to Phang.
October 9: dispositive motions due in the appeal, per the district court's account of the appeals court's schedule.
October 14: the government's privacy review of Maxwell's filings.

What the record does not say

How many foreign-language pages exist, in which languages, or what they contain. In what this desk read, "thousands of documents" is the Department's only stated size, and the memorandum that used it cites nothing for it.
Whether any would be released. The order covers materials "that may be subject to production under the EFTA"; the Act's withholding grounds still apply, and Phang's own filing says later disputes over redactions "will need to be resolved through further litigation."
Whether the in camera material arrived on September 24. It goes to the judge, not the public docket.
Anything about the other category the January 30 letter set aside, files with "technical issues". No order this desk read addresses them.
Who wins the appeal. A temporary stay is not a ruling, and jurisdiction over the second appeal is itself contested.
Anything about any person named in the files. The contempt resolution concerns subpoena compliance and states no finding about Black's conduct.

A federal judge called the Justice Department's reason for not reviewing foreign-language Epstein records 'without merit' and set a September 24 deadline to start. The Department appealed a second time, the deadline is on hold, and no filing has yet given a count of those documents.