Which judges wrote opinions explaining why Epstein or Trump grand jury materials should remain sealed?

1. Berman’s August ruling: seal first, transparency later

In August 2025, Judge Richard Berman refused the Trump administration’s request to unseal Epstein grand‑jury materials, reasoning that longstanding grand‑jury secrecy has “clear precedent and sound purpose,” and that the government had not demonstrated any special circumstances that would override that secrecy; he also observed the government already possessed vastly more investigatory material than the roughly 70 pages of grand‑jury transcripts at issue ^{[1] [2]}.

2. Berman foregrounded victims’ safety and the evidentiary value

Berman emphasized risks to victims’ safety and privacy and described the transcripts as largely hearsay from an FBI agent with no direct knowledge — factors he said reduced the public interest in unsealing those specific pages compared with broader investigative files the government holds ^{[2] [1]}.

3. Smith’s December order: statute trumps Rule 6 secrecy

On Dec. 5, 2025, Judge Rodney Smith granted the DOJ’s expedited motion to unseal grand‑jury transcripts from the Florida investigations, explaining that the newly enacted Epstein Files Transparency Act’s “later‑enacted and specific language” trumps Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6’s general prohibition on grand‑jury disclosure ^{[3] [4]}.

4. Smith’s decision tied to new congressional mandate, not changed judicial view of secrecy

Smith’s order relied explicitly on the change in statutory law rather than a new factual finding about victims or evidentiary risk; he approved modifying a protective order and found the Act authorizes release of “unclassified records, documents, communications and investigative materials” related to Epstein and Maxwell, thereby altering the legal baseline that Berman applied months earlier ^{[3] [4]}.

5. Two judicial perspectives reflect competing legal tools

The two opinions illustrate a clear legal tension: Berman applied traditional Rule 6 protections and weighed privacy and evidentiary utility to keep materials sealed ^{[1] [2]}, while Smith concluded that Congress’s targeted statute changed the legal landscape and permitted unsealing despite those traditional protections ^{[3] [4]}.

6. What the judges did not decide (and what reporting does not say)

Available sources do not mention either judge making final determinations about which specific names or passages must remain redacted; reporting shows Smith did not attach a deadline in his brief order and the DOJ must still comply with the Act’s disclosure timetable ^{[5] [6]}. Sources also do not report Smith conducting a line‑by‑line victim‑safety balancing like Berman’s August opinion ^{[3] [2]}.

7. Political and institutional context the judges acknowledged

Both rulings were embedded in intense political pressure: Congress passed the transparency measure overwhelmingly and President Trump signed it after initially opposing release, prompting DOJ motions to unseal multiple tranches of Epstein‑related materials ^{[4] [7]}. Berman rebuked the government in August for seeking court intervention while possessing broader investigative files; Smith accepted the congressional override as dispositive ^{[1] [3]}.

8. Why both opinions matter for public understanding

Berman’s opinion explains why courts traditionally guard grand‑jury secrecy—protecting victims and preserving investigatory integrity—while Smith’s ruling shows how legislation can change that calculus by compelling disclosure. The pair together map the legal path by which previously sealed materials moved toward public release ^{[2] [3]}.

Limitations: this analysis relies solely on the provided reporting and does not attempt to interpret unpublished orders or sealed filings; for line‑by‑line redaction outcomes or subsequent appeals, available sources do not mention those details ^{[4] [3]}.