Latest / The Epstein Chronicles / DOJ Moves to End Katie Phang’s Epstein Files Lawsuit (Part 2) (10/4/26)

Transcript

DOJ Moves to End Katie Phang’s Epstein Files Lawsuit (Part 2) (10/4/26) · 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 we left off with the memo filed by Todd
• 0:09
  Speaker 1: Blanche in support of his argument in the lawsuit against
• 0:12
  Speaker 1: Katie Blanche. Argument 1. Plaintiff lacks authority to demand the
• 0:17
  Speaker 1: relief she seeks under the EFTA. Plaintiff cannot privately enforce
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: the EFTA. She lacks Article 3 standing and she certainly
• 0:26
  Speaker 1: lacks a cause of action, indeed of a private right
• 0:29
  Speaker 1: of action, clear absence from the plain statutory text were
• 0:33
  Speaker 1: not evidence enough, the fact that Congress is considering amending
• 0:36
  Speaker 1: the EFTA specifically to add the private right of action
• 0:40
  Speaker 1: surely provides the missing link. A. The EFTA does not
• 0:44
  Speaker 1: provide plaintiff with a private right of action. Congress did
• 0:47
  Speaker 1: not provide a private right of action to enforce the
• 0:50
  Speaker 1: EFTA in the EFTA itself or via any other statute,
• 0:55
  Speaker 1: and the EFTA's various accountability mechanisms requiring congressional reporting and
• 1:00
  Speaker 1: publication in the Federal Register, strongly suggests that Congress did
• 1:04
  Speaker 1: not intend to enable every private citizen to supervise the
• 1:08
  Speaker 1: Department's compliance. For these reasons, the APA does not provide
• 1:12
  Speaker 1: private citizens with a right to enforce the EFTA themselves.
• 1:17
  Speaker 1: Under U.S. Code 5, Section 701A1, the APA does not
• 1:21
  Speaker 1: apply when statutes preclude judicial review, when a statutory scheme
• 1:26
  Speaker 1: omits a right to review, and when there is good
• 1:28
  Speaker 1: reason to think that omission is is not an uninformative
• 1:32
  Speaker 1: consequence of the limited scope of the statute, but rather
• 1:35
  Speaker 1: a manifestation of a considered congressional judgment, the omission means
• 1:40
  Speaker 1: that Congress, deliberately intended to foreclose, review such claims. The
• 1:45
  Speaker 1: EFTA's express language, the structure of the statutory scheme, its objectives,
• 1:50
  Speaker 1: its legislative history, and the nature of the administrative action
• 1:54
  Speaker 1: involved all support the conclusion that this statutory scheme precludes
• 1:58
  Speaker 1: judicial review. As a general matter, FOIA serves as a
• 2:02
  Speaker 1: vehicle for citizens who want to know what their government
• 2:05
  Speaker 1: is up to. But the EFTA omits any private right
• 2:09
  Speaker 1: of action while including other accountability and transparency measures, such
• 2:13
  Speaker 1: as reporting to Congress and in the Federal Register. This
• 2:18
  Speaker 1: comprehensive scheme indicates that the omission of a private right
• 2:22
  Speaker 1: of action was intentional. When enacting the EFTA, Congress legislated
• 2:28
  Speaker 1: against the backdrop of of the detailed system of FOIA,
• 2:32
  Speaker 1: which provides private litigants with the ability to secure judiciously
• 2:35
  Speaker 1: compelled access to records. The EFTA, by contrast, imposed additional
• 2:40
  Speaker 1: public disclosure duties on the department while layering congressional and
• 2:44
  Speaker 1: federal oversight reporting requirements, which suggests that Congress sought to
• 2:49
  Speaker 1: expand the department's disclosure obligations without expanding the ability of
• 2:53
  Speaker 1: private litigants to enforce such obligations. In other words, Congress
• 2:57
  Speaker 1: carefully considered disclosure in this context, and the intentional omission
• 3:02
  Speaker 1: of a right of action in this specialized scheme therefore
• 3:05
  Speaker 1: precludes judicial review of plaintiffs' claims. Allowing private judicial enforcement
• 3:11
  Speaker 1: would be a significant policy decision that fundamentally alters the
• 3:15
  Speaker 1: relationship between private parties, the courts, and the executive branch
• 3:19
  Speaker 1: when it comes to disclosure. Congress, after all, does not
• 3:23
  Speaker 1: hide elephants in mouseholes. But even if the EFTA and
• 3:28
  Speaker 1: the FOIA could not be read together to affirmatively foreclose
• 3:31
  Speaker 1: any judicial review, the APA is still not the source
• 3:35
  Speaker 1: of plaintiff's right of action here. Under U.S. Code 5,
• 3:38
  Speaker 1: Section 704, Judicial Review, under the APA is available only
• 3:43
  Speaker 1: as to final agency action for which there is no
• 3:46
  Speaker 1: other adequate remedy in accord. This limitation reflects Congress' judgment
• 3:51
  Speaker 1: that the general grant of review in the APA ought
• 3:55
  Speaker 1: not to be duplicate existing procedure for review of agency
• 3:58
  Speaker 1: action or provide additional judicial remedies in situations where Congress
• 4:02
  Speaker 1: has provided special and adequate review procedure. Here, the Freedom
• 4:07
  Speaker 1: of Information Act provides FANG adequate remedy, as Congress was
• 4:11
  Speaker 1: well aware when it admitted a right of action from
• 4:14
  Speaker 1: the EFTA. See Private Info Center v. IRS, D.C. Circuit 2018, concluding,
• 4:22
  Speaker 1: in a variety of circumstances, that the FOIA offers an
• 4:25
  Speaker 1: adequate remedy within the meaning of the APA. Indeed, the
• 4:29
  Speaker 1: courts have held time and time again that FOIA is
• 4:32
  Speaker 1: the exclusive remedy for obtaining purportedly improperly withheld agency records,
• 4:38
  Speaker 1: citing Johnson v. Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, D.C. Circuit, 2002,
• 4:44
  Speaker 1: concluding that FOIA provides an adequate remedy such that review
• 4:48
  Speaker 1: under the APA is barred. See Harvey v. Lynch, DDC, 2015.
• 4:55
  Speaker 1: Courts in this circuit have uniformly concluded that they lack
• 4:58
  Speaker 1: jurisdiction over APA claims that seek remedies available under FOIA,
• 5:03
  Speaker 1: Shavara v. Imaging and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, JEB, 2018, DDC,
• 5:10
  Speaker 1: October 2, 2018. Internal citations and quotations omitted. There is
• 5:15
  Speaker 1: little doubt that the FOIA offers an adequate remedy within
• 5:18
  Speaker 1: the meaning of Section 704. When litigants seek to gain
• 5:22
  Speaker 1: access to records. Alterations in original. Greenpeace versus the Department
• 5:30
  Speaker 1: of Homeland Security, DDC 2018. Dismissing APA claim for failure
• 5:35
  Speaker 1: to state a claim because FOIA offers an adequate remedy.
• 5:40
  Speaker 1: Cause of Action Institute versus Eggleston, DDC 2016. Courts in
• 5:46
  Speaker 1: this circuit have uniformly declined jurisdiction over APA claims that
• 5:50
  Speaker 1: sought remedies made available by FOIA. At the prelim injunction stage,
• 5:54
  Speaker 1: the court held otherwise based on its conclusion that plaintiff
• 5:58
  Speaker 1: likely would not be able to obtain the unredacted documents
• 6:01
  Speaker 1: she seeks because they would likely be subject to FOIA
• 6:04
  Speaker 1: exemptions on disclosure, ECF No. 16 at 30. According to
• 6:09
  Speaker 1: the court, the EFTA mandates broad disclosure that would be
• 6:12
  Speaker 1: exempted under FOIA. So FOIA is not an adequate remedy. Respectfully,
• 6:18
  Speaker 1: that rationale misunderstands what courts as an adequate remedy. Instead,
• 6:23
  Speaker 1: Chief Judge Boasberg has rejected this exact sort of reasoning.
• 6:28
  Speaker 1: It does not matter that FOIA exemptions might apply because
• 6:31
  Speaker 1: it's well settled that the alternate remedy must be only
• 6:33
  Speaker 1: of the same genre. It need not be identical. See
• 6:38
  Speaker 1: also Rio, Santa Cruz Neighborhood, Health Center vs. U.S. Department
• 6:42
  Speaker 1: of Health and Human Services. DDC Circuit 2005. The relevant
• 6:47
  Speaker 1: genre here is easy to identify. The disclosure of documents, ID,
• 6:53
  Speaker 1: that is what plaintiff seeks and that is what FOIA provides,
• 6:56
  Speaker 1: even if plaintiff is not entitled to disclosure under FOIA.
• 7:00
  Speaker 1: Simply put, the possibility that plaintiff, might fair worse, under FOIA,
• 7:04
  Speaker 1: does not entitle her to bring a claim under the APA.
• 7:08
  Speaker 1: First is demonstrated through the ex parte in camera production.
• 7:11
  Speaker 1: Plaintiff cannot obtain the information she seeks because it's protected.
• 7:15
  Speaker 1: Victim identifying information or otherwise prohibited from disclosure. The fact
• 7:20
  Speaker 1: that the EFTA is a disclosure law makes no difference.
• 7:24
  Speaker 1: Because the EFTA lacks a cause of action, plaintiff must
• 7:27
  Speaker 1: find one somewhere. She cannot do so in the APA
• 7:30
  Speaker 1: because FOIA itself strikes the balance between statutory duties and
• 7:34
  Speaker 1: judicial enforcement that Congress desired. That congressional choice is especially
• 7:40
  Speaker 1: stark here. Congress created all sorts of accountability mechanisms in
• 7:44
  Speaker 1: the EFTA, but did not include a private right of action. Indeed,
• 7:48
  Speaker 1: on July 15, 2026, in response to allegations that the
• 7:52
  Speaker 1: department has not fulfilled its obligation under the EFTA, Representative Massey, Khanna,
• 7:58
  Speaker 1: and Leger-Fernandez introduced a proposed bill called the Epstein-Files Transparency
• 8:03
  Speaker 1: Act II. The proposed EFTA II would amend the EFTA
• 8:08
  Speaker 1: to authorized state and local government officials and victims to
• 8:11
  Speaker 1: bring action against the Attorney General of the U.S. alleging
• 8:14
  Speaker 1: an unlawful withholding, redaction, delay, removal, concealment, failure to publish,
• 8:20
  Speaker 1: failure to produce, or failure to justify a withholding or
• 8:23
  Speaker 1: redaction of a record, document, communication, or investigative material described
• 8:28
  Speaker 1: in Section 2A of the EFTA. ID Section 4A1. A
• 8:34
  Speaker 1: victim alleging an unlawful withholding, redaction, delay, removal, concealment, failure
• 8:40
  Speaker 1: to produce, failure to respond, or failure to justify a
• 8:43
  Speaker 1: withholding or redaction of a record required to be provided
• 8:46
  Speaker 1: shall have standing to bring an action in the United
• 8:49
  Speaker 1: States District Court, for the District Court of Columbia, or
• 8:53
  Speaker 1: in any United States District Court located in the state
• 8:56
  Speaker 1: in which the victim resides. ID at Section 4B3A. The
• 9:01
  Speaker 1: press release describing the EFTA to indicates that the primary
• 9:05
  Speaker 1: purpose of the proposal is to create a private right
• 9:08
  Speaker 1: of action. In other words, Congress is considering enacting an
• 9:12
  Speaker 1: EFTA II that would make the EFTA privately enforceable. There
• 9:16
  Speaker 1: would be no need for such a consideration if private
• 9:19
  Speaker 1: parties could simply enforce the EFTA through the APA, and
• 9:23
  Speaker 1: Congress has not enacted EFTA II. That strongly suggests that
• 9:28
  Speaker 1: the EFTA is not privately enforceable. Ignoring the congressional choice
• 9:33
  Speaker 1: would have problematic consequences. If others took the same erroneous approach,
• 9:39
  Speaker 1: they would soon be flooded with piecemeal litigation over an
• 9:42
  Speaker 1: untold number of files in the library, while disincentivizing Congress
• 9:45
  Speaker 1: from acting to address any lingering concerns. As in other instances,
• 9:50
  Speaker 1: the better approach for members of Congress to view the
• 9:53
  Speaker 1: unredacted material and engage with the department, which would respond accordingly,
• 9:57
  Speaker 1: the productive exchange would better serve B. Plaintiff lacks Article
• 9:50
  Speaker 1: III standing because she has no individualized or particularized injury
• 9:53
  Speaker 1: differentiating her from any member of the general public. plaintiff
• 10:18
  Speaker 1: has not asserted, nor can she assert, a particularized injury
• 10:21
  Speaker 1: that differentiates her from the general public. The law of
• 10:25
  Speaker 1: Article III standing is built on a single basic idea,
• 10:29
  Speaker 1: the idea of separation of powers, TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez 595, 2021.
• 10:36
  Speaker 1: Under Article II, federal courts do not adjudicate hypothetical or
• 10:40
  Speaker 1: abstract disputes and do not exercise general or legal oversight
• 10:44
  Speaker 1: of the legislative and executive branches. and courts may not
• 10:48
  Speaker 1: exceed the bounds of their lawful authority simply because they
• 10:51
  Speaker 1: may think another branch has exceeded its own. Instead, to
• 10:56
  Speaker 1: establish standing, a plaintiff must prove 1. that it suffered
• 11:00
  Speaker 1: an injury in fact, an invasion of a legally protected interest,
• 11:04
  Speaker 1: which is a. concrete and particularized, and b. actual or imminent,
• 11:09
  Speaker 1: not conjectural or hypothetical. 2. The injury is fairly traceable
• 11:14
  Speaker 1: to the challenged action of the defendant, and not the
• 11:16
  Speaker 1: result of the independent action of some third party not
• 11:20
  Speaker 1: before the court. And three, that it's likely as opposed
• 11:23
  Speaker 1: to merely speculative that the injury will be redressed by
• 11:26
  Speaker 1: a favorable decision. Plaintiff seeks to enforce the statutory obligation
• 11:32
  Speaker 1: to make certain information publicly available, but Congress has not
• 11:35
  Speaker 1: provided plaintiff with any particularized right to the information in question. Instead,
• 11:40
  Speaker 1: Congress has purported to create a general obligation to which
• 11:44
  Speaker 1: the executive branch must adhere. plaintiff's suit thus impermissibly advances
• 11:49
  Speaker 1: a generalized grievance that the government is not complying with
• 11:52
  Speaker 1: the law. As the Supreme Court has explained to satisfy
• 11:55
  Speaker 1: Article 3, a plaintiff must identify a particularized injury as
• 12:00
  Speaker 1: contrasted with a generalized grievance that is undifferentiated and common
• 12:05
  Speaker 1: to all members of the public. The requirement of a
• 12:08
  Speaker 1: particularized injury ensures that courts remain limited to carrying out
• 12:12
  Speaker 1: their proper constitutional functions. That requirement is especially important because
• 12:17
  Speaker 1: vindicating the public interest, including the public interest in government
• 12:21
  Speaker 1: observance of the law, is the function of Congress and
• 12:24
  Speaker 1: the chief executive, not the function of private litigants seeking
• 12:28
  Speaker 1: recourse in the courts and thereby usurping the prerogative of
• 12:31
  Speaker 1: political branches to work out any disagreement in this area
• 12:35
  Speaker 1: among themselves. Thus the generalized interest in the government following
• 12:39
  Speaker 1: the law is an abstract injury that does not give
• 12:42
  Speaker 1: rise to Article 3, Schlesinger vs. Reservists to Stop the War, 1974,
• 12:49
  Speaker 1: explaining that it would violate Article 3 if, in the
• 12:52
  Speaker 1: absence of any showing of concrete injury, courts were to
• 12:55
  Speaker 1: entertain citizen suits to vindicate the public non-concrete interest in
• 12:59
  Speaker 1: the proper administration of the laws. Time and time again,
• 13:03
  Speaker 1: the Supreme Court has rejected the idea that generalized citizen
• 13:07
  Speaker 1: interest is a sufficient basis for standing. For example, in Richardson,
• 13:12
  Speaker 1: the plaintiff sought to enforce a provision of the Appropriations Clause,
• 13:16
  Speaker 1: requiring that a regular statement, an account of receipts, and
• 13:19
  Speaker 1: expenditures of all public money shall be published from time
• 13:22
  Speaker 1: to time. The plaintiff contended that the Central Intelligence Agency
• 13:26
  Speaker 1: was violating this provision by failing to provide adequate public disclosures,
• 13:31
  Speaker 1: and that a statute authorizing the agency's more limited disclosures
• 13:35
  Speaker 1: was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court held that the plaintiff lacked standing.
• 13:40
  Speaker 1: At the outset, the court held that the plaintiff asserted
• 13:42
  Speaker 1: injuries failed to meet the standards for taxpayers standing set
• 13:46
  Speaker 1: forth in Flast and Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, Richardson, 418 U.S.
• 13:52
  Speaker 1: at 175. Then, and more relevant here, the court turned
• 13:56
  Speaker 1: to the plaintiff's contention that he had a personal stake
• 13:59
  Speaker 1: in the case giving rise to a standing because his
• 14:02
  Speaker 1: inability to obtain the information impaired his efforts to follow
• 14:06
  Speaker 1: the actions of Congress and the Executives. end to properly
• 14:10
  Speaker 1: fulfill his obligation as a member of the electorate in
• 14:13
  Speaker 1: voting for candidates. As to the claimed injury, the court
• 14:16
  Speaker 1: concluded that the plaintiff's suit reflected the kind of generalized
• 14:19
  Speaker 1: grievance that does not satisfy Article III requirements because the
• 14:23
  Speaker 1: impact on the plaintiff is plainly undifferentiated and common to
• 14:27
  Speaker 1: all members of the public. And if that was true,
• 14:30
  Speaker 1: the court concluded, even though the specific plaintiff had a
• 14:33
  Speaker 1: genuine interest in the federal government spending, Idea 177 Indeed,
• 14:38
  Speaker 1: had explained how he intended to use the specific information
• 14:41
  Speaker 1: that he sought. ID at 176. All right, we're going
• 14:45
  Speaker 1: to wrap up right here. And in the next episode
• 14:47
  Speaker 1: dealing with the topic, we're going to pick up where
• 14:49
  Speaker 1: we left off. All the information that goes with this
• 14:52
  Speaker 1: episode can be found in the description box.