The document is the government\u2019s reply in Phang v. Blanche<\/em>, the Epstein Files Transparency Act suit journalist Katie Phang brought in April<\/a> after the DOJ declared its production complete and it very much was not. Judge Emmet Sullivan granted Phang a preliminary injunction on June 25, finding that the acting attorney general had effectively conceded<\/a> the violation by declining to respond substantively. Blanche had until July 2 to unredact the documents or show cause why he couldn\u2019t. Spoiler alert: the documents were not forthcoming, and Blanche filed a response instead of documents. Phang asked for sanctions of $1,000 a day.<\/p>\n According to Blanche, Phang\u2019s filing is \u201cfilled with hyperbolic rhetoric.\u201d Her papers \u201cmake several outlandish claims.\u201d One of her characterizations is \u201cdemonstrably false.\u201d Another is \u201cblatantly false.\u201d She makes \u201csensational and unsubstantiated claims.\u201d She makes an \u201cattenuated claim.\u201d Her sanctions argument is \u201cabsurd,\u201d and then, one clause later, \u201ceven more absurd.\u201d<\/p>\n There\u2019s also a real proofreading problem in the government\u2019s work. The opening paragraph says the government\u2019s prior filing \u201csets forth rational and arguments\u201d \u2014 presumably \u201crationale,\u201d though at this point who can say. A later sentence explains that \u201caddressing new and novel theories of a recently enacted under the threat of contempt and sanctions is not the procedure envisioned by the Federal Rules.\u201d A recently enacted what? The noun never arrives. Somewhere in there the plaintiff also pluralizes into \u201cPlaintiffs\u201d and then back again.<\/p>\n This is the same Justice Department that filed a brief with the DRAFT watermark still splashed across every page<\/a>, the same one now down 10,000 federal lawyers<\/a>, the same one dangling $25,000 signing bonuses<\/a> at anyone willing to take the work. When you push out everyone with real experience, you get this.<\/p>\n This filing is one paragraph of an argument \u2014 the government contends the Privacy Act carries civil remedies and criminal penalties for willful violations, and that Phang waved this away by asserting the Epstein Act simply trumps it as the later statute \u2014 surrounded by pages of grievance. And it insists, in so many words, that the Department is committed to transparency and complying with its statutory obligations. What the DOJ actually did, of course, was dump millions of pages of irrelevant material<\/a> \u2014 including, memorably, an Above the Law<\/em> newsletter written years after Epstein died \u2014 while withholding the documents anyone actually wanted<\/a>.<\/p>\n This briefing is happening at a conspicuous time for Blanche, who is in the midst of the Senate confirmation process<\/a> to make his Acting AG job a permanent one. Thom Tillis conditioned his vote on Blanche meeting with Epstein survivors, so Blanche met with them on July 16, and the survivors came out describing him as abrasive and condescending<\/a>.<\/p>\n On Tuesday, two dozen of them put it in writing. In an open letter to Tillis and John Cornyn \u2014 the two Judiciary Committee Republicans best positioned to sink the nomination, one retiring and one already primaried out \u2014 the survivors said the meeting was \u201can hour of deflection, interruption and gaslighting,\u201d and that Blanche showed no remorse for a release that exposed their identities and images. They called the sit-down \u201ca box-checking exercise arranged only after his confirmation was put at risk,\u201d and told Tillis directly that Blanche\u2019s willingness to be in the room should count for less than how he behaved once he was in it. Annie Farmer, who was in that meeting, had already said it left her more confident that senators should vote no.<\/p>\n Earlier:<\/strong> Todd Blanche Sued Over Epstein Files Cover Up<\/a><\/p>\n Todd Blanche Got The Attorney General Nomination. Getting Confirmed Is Another Matter.<\/a><\/p>\n Paging Dr. Freud: Todd Blanche Calls Himself Trump\u2019s Lawyer At His Attorney General Confirmation Hearing<\/a><\/p>\n Above The Law Is In The Epstein Files, Let Us Explain\u2026<\/a><\/p>\n Senator Whitehouse Would Like To Tell You Exactly What He Thinks Of Todd Blanche<\/a><\/p>\n Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of\u00a0The Jabot podcast<\/a>, and co-host of\u00a0Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email\u00a0her<\/a>\u00a0with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter\u00a0@Kathryn1<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky\u00a0@Kathryn1<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n The post Todd Blanche\u2019s Brief Has The Tone Of A Kid Yelling \u2018That\u2019s Not Fair\u2019<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n <\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n This is anything but your typical lawyerly brief.<\/p>\n That is not some small, stylistic quibble. Lawyers know to go after the arguments being made, not the person making it, because judges notice, because opposing counsel will quote it back at you, and because the instant you reach for an adjective instead of a citation, you have announced to the court that you ran out of law. Also, because that\u2019s how professionalism works.<\/p>\n The Justice Department\u2019s recent filing (available in full below) is\u2026 well, something else entirely.<\/a><\/p>\n The document is the government\u2019s reply in Phang v. Blanche<\/em>, the Epstein Files Transparency Act suit journalist Katie Phang brought in April<\/a> after the DOJ declared its production complete and it very much was not. Judge Emmet Sullivan granted Phang a preliminary injunction on June 25, finding that the acting attorney general had effectively conceded<\/a> the violation by declining to respond substantively. Blanche had until July 2 to unredact the documents or show cause why he couldn\u2019t. Spoiler alert: the documents were not forthcoming, and Blanche filed a response instead of documents. Phang asked for sanctions of $1,000 a day.<\/p>\n According to Blanche, Phang\u2019s filing is \u201cfilled with hyperbolic rhetoric.\u201d Her papers \u201cmake several outlandish claims.\u201d One of her characterizations is \u201cdemonstrably false.\u201d Another is \u201cblatantly false.\u201d She makes \u201csensational and unsubstantiated claims.\u201d She makes an \u201cattenuated claim.\u201d Her sanctions argument is \u201cabsurd,\u201d and then, one clause later, \u201ceven more absurd.\u201d<\/p>\n There\u2019s also a real proofreading problem in the government\u2019s work. The opening paragraph says the government\u2019s prior filing \u201csets forth rational and arguments\u201d \u2014 presumably \u201crationale,\u201d though at this point who can say. A later sentence explains that \u201caddressing new and novel theories of a recently enacted under the threat of contempt and sanctions is not the procedure envisioned by the Federal Rules.\u201d A recently enacted what? The noun never arrives. Somewhere in there the plaintiff also pluralizes into \u201cPlaintiffs\u201d and then back again.<\/p>\n This is the same Justice Department that filed a brief with the DRAFT watermark still splashed across every page<\/a>, the same one now down 10,000 federal lawyers<\/a>, the same one dangling $25,000 signing bonuses<\/a> at anyone willing to take the work. When you push out everyone with real experience, you get this.<\/p>\n This filing is one paragraph of an argument \u2014 the government contends the Privacy Act carries civil remedies and criminal penalties for willful violations, and that Phang waved this away by asserting the Epstein Act simply trumps it as the later statute \u2014 surrounded by pages of grievance. And it insists, in so many words, that the Department is committed to transparency and complying with its statutory obligations. What the DOJ actually did, of course, was dump millions of pages of irrelevant material<\/a> \u2014 including, memorably, an Above the Law<\/em> newsletter written years after Epstein died \u2014 while withholding the documents anyone actually wanted<\/a>.<\/p>\n This briefing is happening at a conspicuous time for Blanche, who is in the midst of the Senate confirmation process<\/a> to make his Acting AG job a permanent one. Thom Tillis conditioned his vote on Blanche meeting with Epstein survivors, so Blanche met with them on July 16, and the survivors came out describing him as abrasive and condescending<\/a>.<\/p>\n On Tuesday, two dozen of them put it in writing. In an open letter to Tillis and John Cornyn \u2014 the two Judiciary Committee Republicans best positioned to sink the nomination, one retiring and one already primaried out \u2014 the survivors said the meeting was \u201can hour of deflection, interruption and gaslighting,\u201d and that Blanche showed no remorse for a release that exposed their identities and images. They called the sit-down \u201ca box-checking exercise arranged only after his confirmation was put at risk,\u201d and told Tillis directly that Blanche\u2019s willingness to be in the room should count for less than how he behaved once he was in it. Annie Farmer, who was in that meeting, had already said it left her more confident that senators should vote no.<\/p>\n Earlier:<\/strong> Todd Blanche Sued Over Epstein Files Cover Up<\/a><\/p>\n Todd Blanche Got The Attorney General Nomination. Getting Confirmed Is Another Matter.<\/a><\/p>\n Paging Dr. Freud: Todd Blanche Calls Himself Trump\u2019s Lawyer At His Attorney General Confirmation Hearing<\/a><\/p>\n Above The Law Is In The Epstein Files, Let Us Explain\u2026<\/a><\/p>\n Senator Whitehouse Would Like To Tell You Exactly What He Thinks Of Todd Blanche<\/a><\/p>\n gov.uscourts.dcd.291779.22.0_1<\/a>Download<\/a><\/p>\n This is anything but your typical lawyerly brief. That is not some small, stylistic quibble. Lawyers know to go after the arguments being made, not the person making it, because judges notice, because opposing counsel will quote it back at you, and because the instant you reach for an adjective instead of a citation, you […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":157840,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-157839","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/xira.com\/p\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/IMG_5243-1-scaled-e1623338814705-620x568-oZaHpu.jpg?fit=620%2C568&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/157839","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=157839"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/157839\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/157840"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=157839"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=157839"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=157839"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/abovethelaw.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/4\/2021\/06\/IMG_5243-1-scaled-e1623338814705-620x568.jpg?resize=174%2C160&ssl=1\" "\\"\\"")
<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/abovethelaw.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/4\/2026\/07\/GettyImages-2285625607-300x200.jpg?resize=300%2C200&ssl=1\" "\\"\\"")
\nKathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of\u00a0The Jabot podcast<\/a>, and co-host of\u00a0Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email\u00a0her<\/a>\u00a0with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter\u00a0@Kathryn1<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky\u00a0@Kathryn1<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"