EXCLUSIVE: Trump DOJ Takes Epstein Files Fight to Appeals Court — as Lawyers Clash Over Nearly 100 Examples of Handwritten FBI Interview Notes
Jeffrey Epstein and President Donald Trump are at the center of renewed scrutiny.
Aug. 24 2026, Published 7:55 p.m. ET
The Trump Justice Department is taking its battle over the Jeffrey Epstein files to a federal appeals court – as a separate courtroom clash erupts over handwritten FBI interview notes tied to the s-- offender, RadarOnline.com can reveal.
According to new court documents obtained by Radar, the Justice Department filed a notice of appeal Monday, August 24, challenging a federal judge's June 25 order granting journalist and attorney Katie Phang a preliminary injunction in her lawsuit against Attorney General Todd Blanche.
DOJ Takes Fight to Appeals Court
Attorney General Todd Blanche is named as the defendant in Katie Phang's lawsuit.
U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan's sweeping June order required Blanche to either release certain Epstein-related materials or explain why they should remain withheld.
Among them were underlying FBI interview notes used to prepare four FD-302 interview reports – the FBI forms agents use to summarize information gathered during interviews – as well as emails with sender and recipient names redacted and documents containing the names of potential co-conspirators.
Sullivan also ordered the government to begin reviewing foreign-language materials potentially covered by the Epstein Files Transparency Act and either publish a legally required redaction log in the Federal Register or explain why it could not.
Epstein Files Battle Deepens
Epstein, here with Ghislaine Maxwell, remains at the center of the fight over federal investigative records.
The judge delivered another blow to the government in his accompanying 48-page opinion, finding that Phang was likely to prevail on the relevant claims after the DOJ failed to substantively answer several of her arguments.
Sullivan also rejected the government's request to temporarily stay his ruling while officials considered an appeal. The appeal comes as another potentially explosive dispute has emerged over handwritten FBI interview notes. In an August 20 filing, Phang's attorneys sought to "correct the record" following an August 13 hearing.
According to the filing, DOJ previously argued certain handwritten notes could be withheld because they were "substantially similar to" and duplicative of typed FD-302 reports, while also citing the risk of inadvertently revealing victim information.
Secret FBI Notes Under Fire
The latest court fight centers on Epstein-related records, including disputed handwritten FBI interview notes.
But Phang's lawyers claimed the government had already released the very type of material it was fighting to withhold.
During the hearing, government counsel was asked whether other handwritten FBI notes underlying 302 reports had been released and responded: "To my knowledge, not with respect to the 302s."
Phang's filing fired back: "Defendant's counsel is not correct." Her attorneys provided an example of handwritten notes they said DOJ previously produced and claimed they had identified nearly 100 additional examples.
DOJ Faces New Court Showdown
Never Miss an
Daily updates from the heart of Hollywood, right to your inbox
By entering your email and clicking Sign Up, you’re agreeing to let us send you customized marketing messages about us and our advertising partners. You are also agreeing to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
The Justice Department is fighting the lower court's ruling.
The legal showdown comes despite DOJ previously declaring its Epstein disclosure obligations fulfilled. Sullivan noted the department had produced approximately 3.5 million pages before announcing in January that it had complied with its production obligations under the transparency law.
Phang nevertheless alleged information was improperly withheld, and other requirements remained unmet – claims that ultimately persuaded Sullivan to grant preliminary relief.
The appeals court will now be asked to weigh in as the battle over exactly what the public is entitled to see enters a new phase.
