Washington, Jan 22 (NationPress) A federal judge in New York has turned down a bipartisan appeal from two U.S. lawmakers, including Indian American Ro Khanna, asking for judicial oversight regarding the compliance of the Justice Department with a law that mandates the release of documents linked to the deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer of the Southern District of New York denied the request made by Reps. Thomas Massie, a Republican from Kentucky, and Ro Khanna, a Democrat from California, to appoint a “Special Master and/or Independent Monitor” to supervise the department’s compliance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act.

Engelmayer acknowledged the gravity of the concerns presented by the legislators and victims, stating that the issues “are undeniably important and timely,” and raise genuine concerns regarding whether the DOJ is faithfully adhering to federal law.

Nonetheless, the judge indicated that the court did not possess the authority to grant the relief sought within the context of the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell, which has effectively concluded.

“The Representatives have not articulated how the criminal statutes under which Maxwell was charged would empower the Court to enforce the EFTA,” Engelmayer wrote.

He further explained that no part of the law “vests this Court with that authority,” characterizing the statute as a civil records-disclosure law that extends beyond the court’s jurisdiction in the terminated criminal case.

Massie and Khanna argued that the Justice Department did not meet a mid-December deadline established by the law, failed to submit a necessary report to Congress, and released heavily redacted documents.

They also contended that the department improperly withheld records and later retracted some documents that had previously been public.

In denying the request, Engelmayer ruled that the lawmakers could not join the case as amici curiae.

He stated that they were not parties to the criminal proceedings and that the appointment of a neutral overseer of the Justice Department’s compliance with the statute was “far afield from any matter pending before the Court.”

“The appointment of a neutral to supervise DOJ’s compliance with the EFTA is far afield from any matter pending before the Court,” he wrote, underscoring that amici cannot introduce new issues not raised by the parties themselves.

While the court could not intervene in this manner, the ruling did not preclude other options.

“The decision does not comment on whether the lawmakers would have the right to initiate a separate lawsuit,” he noted, adding that “the Representatives are also, of course, at liberty to pursue oversight of DOJ via the tools available to Congress.”

Congress overwhelmingly passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act in November, mandating the release of documents by a December deadline.

The Justice Department released a substantial batch of investigative records on the deadline date and additional documents thereafter, but lawmakers argue that the disclosures still do not fulfill the statute’s requirements.

The Epstein case has attracted ongoing international attention, including from India, where the management of high-profile abuse cases and transparency in judicial processes are closely scrutinized in political circles.

Political analysts suggest that the outcome of any future congressional or legal actions could influence how sensitive investigative records are disclosed in the U.S., with wider implications for accountability and victims’ rights.