Latest / The Epstein Chronicles / The DOJ Moves To Dismiss The Epstein Related Lawsuit Filed By New Mexico (Part 2) (10/18/26)

Transcript

The DOJ Moves To Dismiss The Epstein Related Lawsuit Filed By New Mexico (Part 2) (10/18/26) · The Epstein Chronicles

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up everyone and welcome to another episode of the
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to pick up
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: where he left off with the DOJ and their move
• 0:08
  Speaker 1: to dismiss the lawsuit brought against them by New Mexico.
• 0:13
  Speaker 1: Legal Standard Under Rule 12b-1, the plaintiff bears the burden
• 0:17
  Speaker 1: of establishing the court's subject matter jurisdiction. If the plaintiff
• 0:21
  Speaker 1: is unable to do so, the court must dismiss the action.
• 0:26
  Speaker 1: Under Rule 12b-1 motion, a court may consider material beyond
• 0:30
  Speaker 1: the allegations in the complaint. Jerome Stevens, Pharmacy, D.C. Circuit, 2005.
• 0:37
  Speaker 1: Where both standing and the subject matter jurisdiction are at issue,
• 0:40
  Speaker 1: the court may inquire into either and find it lacking,
• 0:43
  Speaker 1: dismiss the matter without reaching the other. Moms Against Mercury vs. FDA, D.C. Circuit, 2007.
• 0:52
  Speaker 1: When a defendant files a motion to dismiss a complaint,
• 0:55
  Speaker 1: For lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the plaintiff bears the
• 0:58
  Speaker 1: burden of establishing jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.
• 1:03
  Speaker 1: In considering a motion to dismiss for lack of subject
• 1:05
  Speaker 1: matter jurisdiction under Rule 12b-1, the court is not confined
• 1:09
  Speaker 1: to the letter of the complaint and may consider such
• 1:12
  Speaker 1: material outside the pleadings as it deems appropriate to resolve
• 1:15
  Speaker 1: the question of whether it has jurisdiction to hear the case.
• 1:21
  Speaker 1: Scalero v. District of Columbia Elections and Ethics DDC 2000.
• 1:26
  Speaker 1: This is tied to the court's independent duty to assure
• 1:28
  Speaker 1: itself that the petitioners and their claims satisfy the requirements
• 1:33
  Speaker 1: of Article 3. Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleading
• 1:37
  Speaker 1: and evidence show that there is no genuine dispute as
• 1:40
  Speaker 1: to any material fact and the movement is entitled to
• 1:43
  Speaker 1: judgment as a matter of law. A genuine issue of
• 1:47
  Speaker 1: material fact is one that might affect the outcome of
• 1:49
  Speaker 1: the suit under the governing law. The party seeking summary
• 1:53
  Speaker 1: judgment must demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of
• 1:56
  Speaker 1: material fact. Once the moving party has met its burden,
• 1:59
  Speaker 1: the non-moving party may not rest upon the mere allegations
• 2:03
  Speaker 1: of denial of their pleading, but must instead establish more
• 2:07
  Speaker 1: than a mere existence of a chantilla of evidence in
• 2:10
  Speaker 1: support of their position. Thus, summary judgment is appropriate if
• 2:14
  Speaker 1: the non-moving party fails to offer evidence on which the
• 2:17
  Speaker 1: jury could reasonably find for the non-moving. When determining whether
• 2:21
  Speaker 1: a genuine issue of material fact exists, the trier of
• 2:25
  Speaker 1: fact must view all the facts and reasonable inferences drawn
• 2:29
  Speaker 1: therefrom in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Argument.
• 2:35
  Speaker 1: The court should dismiss New Mexico's complaint. The court cannot
• 2:38
  Speaker 1: consider New Mexico's claims because the decision to deny New
• 2:42
  Speaker 1: Mexico's TUI request is committed to agency discretion by law.
• 2:46
  Speaker 1: In the alternative, should the court turn to the merits,
• 2:49
  Speaker 1: which it should not, It should grant summary judgment in
• 2:52
  Speaker 1: DOJ's favor because New Mexico's complaint shows DOJ properly considered
• 2:58
  Speaker 1: and rejected the request under its TUI regulations. Finally, the
• 3:01
  Speaker 1: court should reject New Mexico's alternative argument that DOJ has
• 3:06
  Speaker 1: unlawfully withheld acting for the same reasons. 1. The court
• 3:10
  Speaker 1: should dismiss New Mexico's complaint under Rule 12b-1 because denying
• 3:14
  Speaker 1: New Mexico's TUI request is committed to agency discretion by law.
• 3:19
  Speaker 1: Although the APA creates a strong presumption of favoring judicial
• 3:22
  Speaker 1: review of administrative action, it explicitly excludes from judicial review
• 3:28
  Speaker 1: those agency actions that are committed to agency discretion by law. U.S.
• 3:33
  Speaker 1: Code 5, Section 701A2. Action is committed to agency discretion
• 3:38
  Speaker 1: if the statute is drawn so that a court would
• 3:40
  Speaker 1: have no meaningful standard against which to judge the agency's
• 3:44
  Speaker 1: exercise of discretion. To determine whether a matter has been
• 3:47
  Speaker 1: committed solely to agency discretion, courts consider both the nature
• 3:51
  Speaker 1: of the administrative action at issue and the language and
• 3:54
  Speaker 1: structure of the statute that supplies the applicable legal standards
• 3:59
  Speaker 1: for reviewing the actions. Here, DOJ's TUI Regulations, the Privacy Act,
• 4:04
  Speaker 1: and the EFTA all show DOJ's denial of the TUI
• 4:07
  Speaker 1: request is committed to agency discretion. A. DOJ's TUI Regulations
• 4:14
  Speaker 1: commit New Mexico's TUI request to agency discretion here. DOJ's
• 4:19
  Speaker 1: TUI regulations reflect that, absent an underlying criminal proceeding, decisions
• 4:23
  Speaker 1: about law enforcement information sharing are committed to the agency's discretion.
• 4:28
  Speaker 1: The regulations are triggered by a request for official information
• 4:32
  Speaker 1: out of federal and state proceedings. A proceeding includes all
• 4:40
  Speaker 1: acts and events between the time and the commencement of
• 4:43
  Speaker 1: of a lawsuit and the entry of a judgment. Here,
• 4:46
  Speaker 1: New Mexico seeks unredacted Epstein files to investigate potential felony
• 4:50
  Speaker 1: offenses under New Mexico's criminal code. But an investigation is
• 4:56
  Speaker 1: distinct from a proceeding. New Mexico's investigation is not a
• 5:00
  Speaker 1: proceeding because it occurs before the commencement of a lawsuit.
• 5:04
  Speaker 1: The distinction has teeth. In the administrative context, the D.C.
• 5:08
  Speaker 1: Circuit has held for an investigation to be considered a
• 5:11
  Speaker 1: proceeding The action must be more than a mere police investigation.
• 5:16
  Speaker 1: United States v. Kelly, D.C. Circuit, 1994. Crucial to the D.C.
• 5:21
  Speaker 1: Circuit's analysis was that proceeding necessarily exercises coercive power, usually
• 5:26
  Speaker 1: by issuing subpoenas or warrants, neither of which have been
• 5:29
  Speaker 1: properly issued here, as there is no criminal proceeding. See
• 5:33
  Speaker 1: also Watts, S.E.C., D.C. Circuit, 2007. Explaining subpoenas are normally
• 5:39
  Speaker 1: the proper mechanism for requesting agency information in a civil
• 5:43
  Speaker 1: or criminal case. The Ninth Circuit has similarly opined that
• 5:46
  Speaker 1: the term official proceeding, as defined in U.S. Code 18,
• 5:50
  Speaker 1: Section 1512C, tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant,
• 5:54
  Speaker 1: does not include an FBI investigation because its plain meaning
• 5:58
  Speaker 1: in broader statutory context pointed to a more narrow decision.
• 6:02
  Speaker 1: Same here. DOJ's TUI regulation apply in proceedings in which
• 6:06
  Speaker 1: the United States is not a party. They further specify
• 6:10
  Speaker 1: DOJ may share information outside the formal administrative process, ID
• 6:15
  Speaker 1: section 1621.c. These distinctions connote that proceeding as used in
• 6:22
  Speaker 1: DOJ's TUI regulation means formal judicial proceedings, not criminal investigations. Accordingly,
• 6:29
  Speaker 1: DOJ's TUI regulation are not implicated here in the first instance. Nevertheless,
• 6:34
  Speaker 1: the TUI regulations permit appropriate disclosure to state law enforcement
• 6:39
  Speaker 1: even in the absence of a formal proceeding. CFR 28
• 6:43
  Speaker 1: Section 1621C What qualifies as appropriate, however, lies solely within
• 6:49
  Speaker 1: DOJ's discretion, as the term appropriate clearly denotes discretion. New
• 6:54
  Speaker 1: Mexico likewise acknowledges that disclosure under this provision is voluntary.
• 6:59
  Speaker 1: The APA cannot compel voluntary action It authorizes courts to
• 7:03
  Speaker 1: require agency action that is legally required. New Mexico, therefore,
• 7:08
  Speaker 1: cannot use the APA to compel the DOJ to exercise
• 7:12
  Speaker 1: a disclosure authority that the regulations make purely discretionary. New
• 7:16
  Speaker 1: Mexico's cases support this conclusion in the wider law enforcement
• 7:20
  Speaker 1: information sharing context. In ACI, Construction LLC v. U.S., the
• 7:25
  Speaker 1: court opined the executive branch has the authority to implement
• 7:29
  Speaker 1: and enforce obligations relating to to intergovernment authorities, and the
• 7:33
  Speaker 1: court cannot add requirements that neither the Constitution nor Congress
• 7:37
  Speaker 1: have required. At best, New Mexico's complaint alleges DOJ may
• 7:42
  Speaker 1: exercise its discretion to grant the TUI request, but it
• 7:46
  Speaker 1: ignores that arguments corollary that DOJ may use the discretion
• 7:51
  Speaker 1: to deny the request. Thus, New Mexico cannot invoke the
• 7:54
  Speaker 1: APA to force DOJ to exercise a discretionary disclosure authority. B.
• 8:01
  Speaker 1: Neither the Privacy Act nor the EFTA contain manageable standards
• 8:04
  Speaker 1: by which to judge DOJ's use of discretion. The Privacy
• 8:08
  Speaker 1: Act and the EFTA confirm that New Mexico's TUI request
• 8:12
  Speaker 1: is committed to agency discretion by law. Start with the
• 8:15
  Speaker 1: Privacy Act. It prohibits disclosing records without the written permission
• 8:20
  Speaker 1: of the individual to whom the record pertains subject to
• 8:23
  Speaker 1: certain exceptions. It contains no language mandating disclosure should an
• 8:27
  Speaker 1: exception apply or Office of Monetary Budget, OMB, regulations separately
• 8:32
  Speaker 1: state that the Privacy Act's exceptions permit but do not
• 8:35
  Speaker 1: mandate disclosure, thus giving agencies discretion when considering a request.
• 8:40
  Speaker 1: This discretion extends to New Mexico's identified exception, information sharing
• 8:45
  Speaker 1: between law enforcement agencies. The Privacy Act grant of discretion
• 8:50
  Speaker 1: permitting but not mandating disclosure means the Act does not
• 8:53
  Speaker 1: contain meaningful standards by which to judge, DOJ's decision to
• 8:57
  Speaker 1: refuse New Mexico's to a request. New Mexico's argument that
• 9:01
  Speaker 1: the Privacy Act allows for routine uses does not change
• 9:06
  Speaker 1: this analysis. New Mexico identified routine allow officials to use
• 9:11
  Speaker 1: their discretion when disclosing certain material, but they do not
• 9:14
  Speaker 1: mandate disclosure. See Privacy Act of 1974, Systems of Records,
• 9:19
  Speaker 1: 52 Federal Regulation, Dissemination of any record may be made
• 9:26
  Speaker 1: to State Agency. Emphasis added, Privacy Act of 1974. Thus,
• 9:32
  Speaker 1: the Privacy Act contains no mechanisms by which to judge
• 9:35
  Speaker 1: DOJ's use of discretion. Move on to the EFTA, which
• 9:39
  Speaker 1: similarly does not contain any manageable standards. First, it does
• 9:43
  Speaker 1: not contemplate information sharing for law enforcement purposes. Second, though
• 9:48
  Speaker 1: the EFTA required DOJ to produce documentation relating to Epstein
• 9:52
  Speaker 1: and Maxwell, It simultaneously granted DOJ discretion to redact material
• 9:57
  Speaker 1: so long as redactions were accompanied by a written judgment.
• 10:00
  Speaker 1: or a summary and were not withheld to prevent embarrassment,
• 10:03
  Speaker 1: reputational harm, or political sensitivity to any government official, public figure,
• 10:08
  Speaker 1: or foreign dignitary. The Attorney General may withhold or redact
• 10:13
  Speaker 1: several portions of records. Third, the AFTA included two public
• 10:17
  Speaker 1: reporting requirements upon completion of the process. First, the Attorney
• 10:22
  Speaker 1: General was required within 14 days of completion to submit
• 10:25
  Speaker 1: a report to Congress listing all categories of records released
• 10:28
  Speaker 1: and withheld, and a summary of redactions made, including legal basis. Second,
• 10:33
  Speaker 1: he was required to publish a notice in the Federal Register,
• 10:37
  Speaker 1: which he did on August 2, 2026, report under public law.
• 10:42
  Speaker 1: Courts have held similar language creates an exclusive retention of
• 10:45
  Speaker 1: a remedy vested solely in Congress. see Armstrong v. Exceptional
• 10:50
  Speaker 1: Child Centers, 2015, that Representatives Merkley and Lujan have introduced
• 10:55
  Speaker 1: a second Epstein Files Transparency Act to give states standing
• 10:59
  Speaker 1: to sue for the release of the Epstein Files, reinforces
• 11:02
  Speaker 1: the argument that the EFTA limited any remedy exclusively to Congress.
• 11:08
  Speaker 1: The grant of agency discretion, along with the implicit exclusive
• 11:12
  Speaker 1: remedy show that Congress did not intend to limit DOJ's
• 11:15
  Speaker 1: discretion when considering a request for unredacted Epstein files. In sum,
• 11:20
  Speaker 1: New Mexico's APA claims fail since the decision to grant
• 11:24
  Speaker 1: or withhold information in the absence of a proceeding is
• 11:27
  Speaker 1: committed to agency discretion by law. All right, we're going
• 11:31
  Speaker 1: to wrap up right here, and in the next episode,
• 11:33
  Speaker 1: we're going to pick up with part two. All the
• 11:35
  Speaker 1: information that goes with this episode can be found in
• 11:38
  Speaker 1: the description box.