Who is the federal judge who sealed the epstein files

1. Who made the sealing decision and what did he rule

U.S. District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer issued a written decision declining to release secret grand jury transcripts connected to the indictment of Ghislaine Maxwell and related Epstein matters, writing that federal law “almost never” permits public disclosure of grand jury materials and warning against casual release ^[1]. Engelmayer framed his ruling as a safeguard against undermining the grand-jury process and criticized the Justice Department’s motives for seeking disclosure, suggesting the request risked creating an “illusion” of transparency rather than genuine public accountability ^[1].

2. Engelmayer’s later role in litigation over the wider “Epstein files”

When two members of Congress asked Engelmayer to allow them to press for a court-appointed special master or independent monitor to compel the Justice Department to disclose the full set of files mandated by the Epstein Files Transparency Act, Engelmayer denied their request — concluding he lacked the jurisdiction to appoint such an outside overseer despite calling the concerns “important and timely” ^[4]. The judge made clear he was sympathetic to victims’ and lawmakers’ concerns but found the legal authority to enforce compliance with the new law did not lie with his court in the way the representatives sought ^{[4] [5]}.

3. Other judges who took different actions on Epstein materials

Engelmayer’s decisions existed alongside opposite rulings by other federal judges: U.S. District Judge Richard M. Berman reversed an earlier decision and authorized release of grand jury and investigative materials under a new congressional transparency law, explicitly citing that statute as superseding secrecy in some instances ^{[2] [6]}. Separately, U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff ordered unsealing of more than 100 documents in a civil case tied to Epstein and JPMorgan Chase, permitting release of sealed exhibits while preserving redactions to protect victims and unrelated third parties ^[3].

4. The legal tension: secrecy, new law, and competing judicial judgments

The contrasting rulings reflect a legal tug-of-war: longstanding grand-jury secrecy norms and judicial caution about release versus Congress’s recent Epstein Files Transparency Act and Justice Department requests to unseal materials ^{[1] [2]}. Engelmayer’s sealing decision rests on precedent protecting grand-jury confidentiality, while judges like Berman relied on the new statute’s language to authorize broader disclosures; both approaches cite victim privacy and ongoing-investigation exceptions when limiting release ^{[1] [2]}.

5. Why the label “the judge who sealed the Epstein files” can mislead

Calling any single jurist “the judge who sealed the Epstein files” compresses a complex, multi-district litigation landscape into one image; Engelmayer did rule to keep specific grand jury transcripts sealed, but other judges have unsealed related materials and the Justice Department itself has released portions of its records under the new law ^{[1] [2] [7]}. Reporting and political actors sometimes emphasize one ruling over another to support competing narratives about transparency or cover-up; those narratives should be read against the patchwork of court orders and statutory changes now shaping access to Epstein-related records ^{[2] [4]}.

6. Bottom line

The federal judge who notably sealed certain Epstein grand jury transcripts and resisted broad unsealing efforts in that specific matter is Judge Paul A. Engelmayer of the Southern District of New York ^[1]. His rulings are part of a broader, unsettled judicial response in which other federal judges — especially Richard M. Berman and Jed Rakoff — have authorized release of other Epstein-related files under the new statute and different legal rationales ^{[2] [3]}.