Did Clinton appointed democrat judge block release of Epstein files
Executive summary
A federal judge in Manhattan — Richard M. Berman — denied a prior request this year to unseal grand jury transcripts in the Ghislaine Maxwell/Jeffrey Epstein matter, while other judges have since authorized releases after Congress passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act and the Justice Department renewed motions [1] [2] [3]. Recent rulings have instead cleared DOJ requests to unseal grand jury materials: U.S. District Judge Rodney Smith in Florida and Judge Paul Engelmayer (and Judge Richard Berman in subsequent actions) approved releases tied to the new law and DOJ motions in December 2025 [4] [5] [6] [7].
1. What people mean by “Clinton-appointed judge” and the blocked release
The phrase refers to Judge Richard M. Berman, who was described in some outlets as having denied a Trump-administration request earlier in 2025 to unseal grand jury transcripts in the Maxwell/Epstein matter; contemporaneous reporting characterizes that denial as the court finding the government had not met the high standard to pierce grand jury secrecy [1] [2]. That earlier ruling is the basis for claims saying “a Clinton-appointed judge blocked release” [1].
2. The legal reason Berman denied unsealing in August 2025
Judge Berman wrote that the limited grand jury materials at issue — roughly 70 pages of transcripts and exhibits — would add little to the public record and that the government’s larger trove of files dwarfed those pages, calling the unsealing request a likely diversion from broader disclosure questions [1] [2]. PBS and The Guardian reported Berman’s ruling emphasized Rule 6(e) secrecy and that the government had not shown a “significant and compelling” reason to disclose [2] [1].
3. What changed after Congress passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act
Congress enacted a law in November 2025 requiring the Justice Department to release unclassified investigative records related to Epstein and Maxwell within 30 days; DOJ then applied to judges to unseal grand jury materials consistent with that statute, and several judges subsequently authorized release or clearance to make materials public under the Act [8] [3] [4]. Florida Judge Rodney Smith and New York judges including Paul Engelmayer and Richard Berman later granted DOJ requests tied to that statutory mandate [4] [5] [7] [6].
4. Competing narratives and political framing
Conservative outlets and social media framed Berman’s initial denial as partisan — “Clinton-appointed judge blocks Trump” — which simplifies a legal decision into partisan terms [9]. Mainstream reporting shows the August denial rested on grand jury secrecy law and evidentiary analysis rather than a political instruction; later decisions to unseal came after a statutory change that altered DOJ’s obligations [1] [2] [3]. Both narratives exist in the sources: partisan framing in some outlets [9] and legal-process explanations in Reuters, The Guardian and PBS [4] [1] [2].
5. What the rulings actually do and don’t mean for disclosure
Judges who authorized releases did so by applying the new federal statute and weighing victim privacy and Rule 6(e) protections; courts still oversee redactions and may limit material that could harm victims or ongoing investigations [3] [6] [10]. The statutory deadline gives DOJ until December 19, 2025 to publish unclassified material, but judges retain authority to approve or shape how grand jury materials are unsealed and redacted [3] [10].
6. Limitations in reporting and unanswered questions
Available sources do not mention whether Berman’s original textual reasoning referenced any political directives from the Clinton administration (not found in current reporting); they also do not say that any single judge permanently barred all releases — subsequent orders authorized disclosure under the new law [1] [4] [5]. The balance between transparency and victims’ privacy continues to be litigated and is an explicit focus of judges’ opinions [6] [2].
7. Bottom line for the claim “Clinton-appointed judge blocked release of Epstein files”
The claim is rooted in a factual August 2025 decision by Judge Richard M. Berman to deny an unsealing request; courts explained that denial on legal grounds tied to grand jury secrecy and the limited value of the specific pages sought [1] [2]. That isolated denial did not ultimately prevent releases: after Congress passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act and DOJ renewed motions, other judges — and in some instances the same courts — approved unsealing or cleared DOJ to release grand jury materials under the new law [3] [4] [5] [7].
Sources cited in this piece include The Guardian, The New York Times, Reuters, PBS, CNBC, BBC, The Independent and related summaries of the Epstein Files Transparency Act and court orders [5] [7] [4] [2] [6] [10] [11] [12].