In a high-stakes legal bid to keep tens of thousands of documents under seal, Ghislaine Maxwell’s legal team has launched a direct assault on the constitutionality of the Epstein Files Transparency Act (EFTA). The motion, filed February 20, 2026, seeks to block the Department of Justice from releasing a massive cache of roughly 90,000 pages tied to the Jeffrey Epstein investigation.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!The Legal Battle: Maxwell vs. Congress
Key arguments from the defense include:
- Judicial Independence: Her attorneys argue that Congress cannot “commandeer” the court system. They claim the power to seal or unseal court records belongs strictly to judges, not politicians.
- Privacy Violations: The defense characterizes the document dump as a collection of “untested allegations” and private data that was seized improperly by the DOJ from a separate civil lawsuit.
- Habeas Corpus Impact: Maxwell is currently fighting for a retrial. Her team argues that a “data dump” of this scale is designed to poison the well of public opinion and jeopardize her legal standing.
What’s in the Crosshairs?
The disputed files originate from the 2015 defamation suit filed by Virginia Giuffre. While the public has seen snippets of this case over the years, the EFTA was intended to open the floodgates.
| Stakeholder | The Strategy |
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Claims the law is a political “press release” that ignores her due process. |
| Department of Justice | Asserts they are legally obligated by the EFTA to provide total transparency. |
| The Public Interest | Lawmakers argue the public has a right to know the full extent of the Epstein network. |
The Current Status
Maxwell remains incarcerated in Florida, serving a 20-year sentence. This latest filing sets up a major constitutional showdown in Manhattan federal court that could determine whether the “final secrets” of the Epstein saga ever see the light of day.
If Maxwell’s team succeeds, it could stall the release of these documents for months—or years—as the case winds through the appellate courts.















