Phang v. Blanche

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA KATIE PHANG, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 26-1417 (EGS) TODD BLANCHE, in his official capacity as Acting Attorney General of the United States, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Responding to public demands for information, Congress with near unanimity passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act (the “Epstein Act”), Pub. L. No. 119-38 on November 18 and 19, 2025, which President Trump signed into law on November 19, 2025. The Epstein Act is an unprecedented disclosure law requiring the Attorney General, with few exceptions, to make publicly available in a searchable and downloadable database all unclassified Department of Justice (“Department”) files related to its investigation of the notorious sexual predator and child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, the child sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell, and their associates. The Epstein Act required extremely timely compliance: the Attorney General was required to make the information publicly available by December 1 19, 2025. The Attorney General made productions on December 19, 20, 22, and 23, 2025, and January 30, 2026. Following the production of approximately 3.5 million pages of documents, the Attorney General announced that the Department had complied with its production obligations under the Epstein Act on January 30, 2026. Katie Phang (“Ms. Phang”) brings this action against Todd Blanche in his official capacity as Acting Attorney General of the United States (the “Attorney General”), claiming that he has improperly withheld information and failed to comply with other requirements in violation of the Epstein Act. Pending before the Court is Ms. Phang’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction in which she seeks relief for a limited list of violations of the Epstein Act. See Application for Prelim. Inj., ECF No. 9; and Mem. of Points and Auths. in Support of Application for a Prelim. Inj. (collectively “Mot.”), ECF No. 9-1. Upon careful consideration of Ms. Phang’s motion, the Attorney General’s opposition, the reply, the applicable law; and for the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS Ms. Phang’s motion. I. Background A. Statutory and Factual Background 1. The Epstein Act The Epstein Act was passed with near unanimity by the House of Representatives on November 18, 2025; by unanimous consent in 2 the Senate on November 19, 2025; and signed into law by President Trump on the same day. See Clerk, United States House of Representatives, Roll Call 289 | Bill Number: H.R. 4405, https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2025289 (last accessed June 22, 2026) (reporting that the roll call vote in the House of Representatives was 427 ayes, 1 no, and 5 not voting); 171 119 Cong. Rec. S8211 (daily ed. Nov. 19, 2025) (reporting passage in the Senate by unanimous consent). It requires the release of documents relating to Mr. Epstein, subject to five permitted grounds for withholding, requires any redactions to be accompanied by a written justification published in the Federal Register, and a report to Congress upon the completion of the release of records. Section 2(a) of the Act requires the Attorney General, within 30 days after enactment, and subject to the prohibited and permitted grounds for withholding, to “make publicly available in a searchable and downloadable format all unclassified records, documents, communications, and investigative materials in the possession of the Department of Justice, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation and United States Attorneys’ Offices, that relate to[:]” (1) Jeffrey Epstein including all investigations, prosecutions, or custodial matters. (2) Ghislaine Maxwell. 3 (3) Flight logs or travel records, including but not limited to manifests, itineraries, pilot records, and customs or immigration documentation, for any aircraft, vessel, or vehicle owned, operated, or used by Jeffrey Epstein or any related entity. (4) Individuals, including government officials, named or referenced in connection with Epstein’s criminal activities, civil settlements, immunity or plea agreements, or investigatory proceedings. (5) Entities (corporate, nonprofit, academic, or governmental) with known or alleged ties to Epstein’s trafficking or financial networks. (6) Any immunity deals, non-prosecution agreements, plea bargains, or sealed settlements involving Epstein or his associates. (7) Internal DOJ communications, including emails, memos, meeting notes, concerning decisions to charge, not charge, investigate, or decline to investigate Epstein or his associates. (8) All communications, memoranda, directives, logs, or metadata concerning the destruction, deletion, alteration, misplacement, or concealment of documents, recordings, or electronic data related to Epstein, his associates, his detention and death, or any investigative files. (9) Documentation of Epstein’s detention or death, including incident reports, witness interviews, medical examiner files, autopsy reports, and written records detailing the circumstances and cause of death. 4 Epstein Act § 2(a)(1)-(9). Section 2(b), entitled “Prohibited Grounds for Withholding” provides that “[n]o record shall be withheld, delayed or redacted on the basis of embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity, including to any government official, public figure, or foreign dignitary.” Epstein Act § 2(a)(1)-(9). Section 2(c), entitled “Permitted Withholdings” identifies five categories of records for which the Attorney General “may withhold or redact the segregable portions,” and requires all redactions to “be accompanied by a written justification published in the Federal Register and submitted to Congress.” Epstein Act § 2(c)(1), (2). The five categories of permitted withholdings are records that: (A) contain personally identifiable information of victims or victims’ personal and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; (B) depict or contain child sexual abuse materials (CSAM) as defined under 18 U.S.C. 2256 and prohibited under 18 U.S.C. 2252–2252A; (C) would jeopardize an active federal investigation or ongoing prosecution, provided that such withholding is narrowly tailored and temporary; (D) depict or contain images of death, physical abuse, or injury of any person; or 5  (E) contain information specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and are in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive order. Epstein Act § 2(c)(1)(A)-(E). Section 2(c) also addresses classified information and requires the Attorney General to declassify such information “to the maximum extent possible.” Epstein Act § 2(c)(3). For information that cannot be declassified, the Attorney General is required to “release an unclassified summary for each of the redacted or withheld classified information.” Epstein Act § 2(c)(3)(A). Decisions to classify information covered by the Epstein Act after July 1, 2025 “shall be published in the Federal Register and submitted to Congress, including the date of classification, the identity of the classifying authority, and an unclassified summary of the justification.” Epstein Act § 2(c)(4). Section 3, entitled “Report to Congress,” provides that within fifteen days of the public release of the materials required by the Act, “the Attorney General shall submit to the House and Senate Committees on the Judiciary a report listing:” (1) All categories of records released and withheld. (2) A summary of redactions made, including legal basis. 6  (3) A list of all government officials and politically exposed persons named or referenced in the released materials, with no redactions permitted under subsection (b)(1). Epstein Act § 3. 2. The Attorney General’s Efforts to Comply with the Epstein Act The Epstein Act required the government to comply with its requirements by December 19, 2025. See Epstein Act § 2(a). On that date, the Attorney General issued a letter to Congress stating that the Department was “producing hundreds of thousands of pages of responsive materials in compliance with the [Epstein Act].” Letter from Todd Blanche, Deputy U.S. Att’y Gen., to Members of Congress at 1 (Dec. 19, 2025), Exhibit D to Ward- Packard Decl., ECF No. 9-3. 1 The letter stated that “the Department is continuing to review additional documents and other items for potential responsiveness,” noting that responsive documents are being provided to the Department by the Department’s components on an ongoing basis. Id. The letter 1 Except for citations to the Attorney General’s letters of December 19, 2025; January 30, 2026; February 2, 2026; and February 14, 2026; and the Department’s letters of April 23, 2026, and May 8, 2026; where the citation to the original page number of the respective letter is provided, the Court cites to the ECF header page number of electronic filings throughout this Memorandum Opinion, not the original page number of the filed document. 7 stated that in addition to withholdings and redactions permitted under section 2(c) of the Epstein Act, the Department “withheld and redacted a limited amount of information otherwise covered by various privileges, including deliberative-process privilege, work-product privilege, and attorney-client privilege.” Id. at 2. The letter stated that “[a] privilege log will be produced in due course,” and that “the Department will provide an explanation for any redacted and withheld materials as part of this production” as required by section 2(c)(2) of the Epstein Act. Id. at 3, 4. The letter acknowledged that the Department did not publicly produce all responsive material by the deadline, stating that “the volume of materials to be reviewed— many of which continue to be produced to [the Justice Management Division]—means that the Department must publicly produce responsive documents on a rolling basis.” Id. at 5. The Attorney General made further productions on December 20, 22, and 23, 2025, and on January 30, 2026. Mot., ECF No. 9-1 at 14. No production was accompanied by a privilege log. Id. On January 30, 2026, the Attorney General issued a second letter, stating that that day’s production “mark[ed] the Department’s compliance with its production obligations under the [Epstein] Act.” Letter from Todd Blanche, Deputy U.S. Att’y Gen., Re: Epstein Files Transparency Act – Production of Department Materials at 1 (Jan. 30, 2026), Exhibit E to Ward- 8 Packard Decl., ECF No. 9-3 (“January 30, 2026 Letter”). The letter stated that “approximately 200,000 pages have been redacted or withheld based on various privileges” and that a “formal report with a summary of redactions made and list of all government officials and politically exposed persons named or referenced in the released materials will be submitted to the House and Senate Committees on the Judiciary within 15 days of today’s release.” Id. at 4. The letter stated that foreign language materials had not been reviewed or produced “[b]ecause it was not practicable for a first-level reviewer to determine the responsiveness of a foreign-language document.” Id. at 5. The letter also stated that some documents were not produced because of technical issues with the files. Id. The letter concluded that “[a]fter submitting the formal report to Congress required under the [Epstein] Act and publishing the written justifications in the Federal Register, the Department's obligations under the [Epstein] Act will be completed.” Id. at 6. On February 2, 2026, the Attorney General acknowledged that “several thousands of documents and media that may [sic] have inadvertently included victim-identifying information” were disclosed in the January 30, 2026 production and were therefore subsequently removed. See Letter from Todd Blanche, Deputy U.S. Att’y Gen. to the Hon. Richard M. Berman & the Hon. Paul A. 9 Engelmayer, United States v. Maxwell, ECF No. 848, 1:20-cr- 00330-PAE (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 2, 2026). Attorneys representing Mr. Epstein’s victims informed the Maxwell court that the Attorney General’s disclosure of victim-identifying information began with the December 20, 2025 production, that the impact to Mr. Epstein’s victims from the disclosure had “escalated from concern to suffering and fear for personal safety,” and that the harm was “irreversible.” United States v. Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330, 2026 WL 279487, at *4, *5 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2026). On April 23, 2026, the Department’s Inspector General announced that it had initiated an audit of the Attorney General’s compliance with the Epstein Act. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, DOJ OIG Announces Initiation of Audit (April 23, 2026), https://oig.justice.gov/news/doj-oig- announces-initiation-audit. 2 On February 14, 2026, the Attorney General issued the report required in section 3 of the Epstein Act in the form of a letter to the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and House Judiciary Committee. See Letter from Todd Blanche, Deputy U.S. Att’y Gen. to Chairman Chuck Grassley, Ranking Member Dick Durbin, Chairman Jim Jordan, Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (Feb. 14, 2026), Exhibit F to Ward- 2 The Court may take judicial notice of information posted on official public websites of government agencies. See Cannon v. District of Columbia, 717 F.3d 200, 205 n.2 (D.C. Cir. 2013). 10 Packard Decl., ECF No. 9-3. With regard to withheld records, the letter stated that “[t]he only category of records withheld were those records where permitted withholdings under section 2(c) and privileged materials were not segregable from material responsive under section 2(a),” and that “the privileges that applied to the withheld records were deliberative-process privilege, work-product privilege, and attorney-client privilege.” Id. at 2. The letter stated that “[no] records were withheld or redacted ‘on the basis of embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity, including to any government official, public figure, or foreign dignitary’” pursuant to section 2(b)(l) of the Epstein Act. Id. The letter included a four-paragraph “Summary of Redactions Made and Legal Basis.” Id. at 2-3. The first category in the summary was the withholdings permitted under section 2(c) of the Epstein Act. Id. at 2. For the second category, the letter stated that “[a]lthough permitted by [section 2(c)(1)(E) of] the [Epstein] Act, no materials were redacted or withheld on th[e] basis that a record ‘contain[ed] information specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and are in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive order.’” Id. at 3. The third category were redactions based on “various privileges, including deliberative-process 11 privilege, work-product privilege, and attorney-client privilege.” Id. The letter cited Supreme Court precedent for these withholdings. Id. The letter concluded with a “List of All Government Officials and Politically Exposed Persons” named or referenced in the released materials. Id. at 3-6. 3. Plaintiff Katie Phang Plaintiff Katie Phang is an “attorney and independent journalist based in Miami, Florida.” Mot., ECF No. 9-1 at 15; see also Phang Decl., ECF No. 9-2 ¶ 2. She has worked as a legal analyst for a variety of media outlets, including hosting “The Katie Phang Show” on MSNOW (then MSNBC). Phang Decl., ECF No. 9- 2 ¶¶ 5, 6. Since April 2025, she has reported on “major domestic and international events, with a focus on legal and political news” on her YouTube channel and other platforms. Id. ¶ 7. She has “extensively covered the crimes of Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and others in the ‘Epstein elite,’” including publishing seventy-two videos about the subject in the last year. Id. ¶¶ 8, 9. Her reporting on the Epstein files has “realized more than 9.7 million views on [her] YouTube channel.” Id. ¶ 10. To conduct her reporting, Ms. Phang has “personally reviewed many of the documents produced . . . pursuant to the [Epstein Act],” and she has “relied and continue[s] to rely on 12 materials disclosed under the [Epstein] Act to develop [her] reporting and to prepare and execute [her] reporting.” Id. ¶ 12. Ms. Phang argues that “[the Attorney General’s] violations of the [Epstein] Act have interfered with [her] ability to perform [her] job as an investigative journalist.” Id. ¶ 13. Specifically, the relief she seeks in her motion are “particularly time-sensitive[] because they are preventing [her] from moving forward with reporting [she] would otherwise conduct over the coming weeks and months.” Id. ¶ 14. Ms. Phang seeks the information that she claims has been illegally withheld “because, as a journalist covering the Epstein story, [she owes her] audience, the public, and the victims of Epstein, Maxwell, and others the most accurate and comprehensive reporting possible.” Id. ¶¶ 32, 33. “[The Attorney General’s] illegal conduct has injured and continues to injure [her] by preventing [her] from conducting the comprehensive reporting [she] would otherwise conduct” about the specific information she seeks to obtain through her motion. Id. ¶ 34. Additionally, she states that “[the Attorney General’s] illegal conduct has [] caused and continues to cause [her] to suffer direct financial losses,” by “constraining [her] ability to report” on the Epstein files. Id. ¶¶ 35, 42. 13  B. Procedural Background Ms. Phang filed the Complaint on April 27, 2026, alleging four claims: (1) Violation of the Administrative Procedure Act - Contrary to Law and in Excess of Statutory Authority; (2) Violation of the Administrative Procedure Act - Arbitrary, Capricious, and an Abuse of Agency Discretion; (3) Ultra Vires Agency Action; 3 and (4) Declaratory Judgment Act. See Compl., ECF No. 1 at 12-14. She asks the Court to provide the following relief: (1) declare that the Attorney General has failed to comply with the Act; (2) enjoin the Attorney General’s ongoing violations of the Epstein Act and require him to: (a) remove all unlawful redactions, (b) explain the bases for any remaining lawful redactions, (c) re-produce all materials that were produced but unlawfully redacted, and (d) produce all materials that have not been produced but should be; (3) appoint a special master to oversee the Attorney General’s compliance with the law; (4) award attorneys’ fees and costs; and (5) grant any other relief the Court deems just and proper. Id. at 14–15. On May 28, 2026, Ms. Phang filed a motion for preliminary injunction, seeking relief for a specific list of violations of 3 The Court does not address Ms. Phang’s likelihood of success on her ultra vires claim in this Memorandum Opinion because she does not invoke ultra vires in the pending motion. 14 the Epstein Act and requesting that the Court enter an order requiring the Attorney General to: (1) show cause why the redactions of sender and recipient names in the emails bearing Bates numbers EFTA00749245, EFTA01187999, EFTA01930501, ETFA01928255, EFTA00628112, EFTA02648868, EFTA02504630, and EFTA01022356 should not be removed; (2) show cause why the redactions of potential co-conspirator names in the DOJ documents bearing Bates numbers EFTA01703108 and EFTA00038227 should not be removed; (3) show cause why the underlying FBI interview notes that formed the basis for the FD-302 interview reports bearing Bates numbers EFTA01245620, EFTA02858481, EFTA02858491, and EFTA02858495 should not be produced (with appropriate redactions to protect victims’ information); (4) immediately initiate review and production of foreign-language materials that may be subject to production under the Epstein Files Transparency Act; and (5) immediately publish in the Federal Register the redaction log required under Epstein Files Transparency Act § 2(C)(2), and update it concurrently with each future release of redacted materials. Mot., ECF No. 9-1 at 35-36. The Attorney General filed his opposition to the motion on June 5, 2026, see Opp’n, ECF No. 12; and Ms. Phang filed her reply on June 8, 2026. See Reply, ECF No. 13. The motion is ripe and ready for the Court’s adjudication. 15  II. Standard of Review “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right,” and only “upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22, 24 (2008). The moving party “must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 20. “[T]he first and most important factor” is likelihood of success on the merits. Aamer v. Obama, 742 F.3d 1023, 1038 (D.C. Cir. 2014). Where the federal government is the opposing party, the balance of equities and public interest factors merge. See Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 435 (2009). In this Circuit, the four factors have typically been evaluated on a “sliding scale,” such that if “the movant makes an unusually strong showing on one of the factors, then it does not necessarily have to make as strong a showing on another factor.” Davis v. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp., 571 F.3d 1288, 1291–92 (D.C. Cir. 2009). In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Winter, 555 U.S. at 7; “the D.C. Circuit has suggested that a positive showing on all four preliminary injunction factors may be required.” Holmes v. FEC, 71 F. Supp. 3d 178, 183 n.4 (D.D.C. 2014); see also Sherley v. Sebelius, 644 16 F.3d 388, 393 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (“[W]e read Winter at least to suggest if not to hold that a likelihood of success is an independent, freestanding requirement for a preliminary injunction.” (quotation marks omitted)). Nonetheless, “the Circuit has had no occasion to decide this question because it has not yet encountered a post-Winter case where a preliminary injunction motion survived the less rigorous sliding-scale analysis.” ConverDyn v. Moniz, 68 F. Supp. 3d 34, 46 n.2 (D.D.C. 2014); see also Changji Esquel Textile Co. v. Raimondo, 40 F.4th 716, 726 (D.C. Cir. 2022) (“In the past, we have . . . reserved the question whether the sliding-scale approach remains valid. We follow the same approach here because, even under the sliding-scale approach, the movant must raise at least a serious legal question on the merits.” (internal quotations and citations omitted)); cf. Hanson v. District of Columbia, 120 F.4th 223, 243 (D.C. Cir. 2024) (citations omitted). For the reasons explained below, all factors weigh in Ms. Phang’s favor. III. Analysis A. The Court Likely Has Jurisdiction Over Ms. Phang’s Claims The Attorney General argues that the Court lacks jurisdiction over Ms. Phang’s claims because: (1) the Epstein Act does not provide for a private right of action; (2) Ms. 17 Phang lacks Article III standing; and (3) the Administrative Procedure Act’s (“APA”) 4 waiver of sovereign immunity does not apply here because Ms. Phang has an adequate remedy under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) 5. Opp’n, ECF No. 12 at 15. For the reasons explained below, each of the Attorney General’s arguments is without merit. 1. The APA Provides Ms. Phang With a Right of Action The Attorney General argues that “[b]y its own terms, nowhere does [the Epstein Act] expressly authorize private individuals to sue for alleged violations, nor does the statutory scheme indicate that Congress intended to create an implied right of action,” and therefore “any claim premised on an alleged violation of the Epstein Act fails as a matter of law.” Opp’n, ECF No. 12 at 16–17. However, Ms. Phang sues under the APA, not under the Epstein Act. “The APA, by its terms, provides a right to judicial review of all final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court, § 704, and applies universally except to the extent that—(1) statutes preclude judicial review; or (2) agency action is committed to agency discretion by law, § 701(a).” Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 175 (1997) (citation 4 5 U.S.C. § 706(2). 5 5 U.S.C. § 552. 18 modified). The Attorney General has conceded that the production of documents was final agency action. Opp’n, ECF No. 12 at 23. Ms. Phang alleges that the Attorney General’s violations of the Act are “not in accordance with law” pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) because they are contrary to the requirements of the Epstein Act. Compl., ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 48-51. Ms. Phang also alleges that the Attorney General’s violations of the Act are arbitrary and capricious under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) because the Attorney General’s production of materials “lacks a lawful basis and because [the Attorney General] has not articulated an adequate, reasoned, or lawful basis for redacting documents in whole or in part, retracting documents, and failing to produce others.” Id. ¶¶ 52-55. For all these reasons, the Court rejects the Attorney General’s argument that Ms. Phang’s claims fail because the Epstein Act does not provide a private right of action. Ms. Phang has a right of action under the APA. 2. Ms. Phang Likely Has Article III Standing a. Legal Standard “Article III of the Constitution limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to ‘Cases’ and ‘Controversies.’” Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149, 157 (2014) (quoting U.S. CONST. art. III, § 2). “‘One element of the case-or-controversy requirement’ is that plaintiffs ‘must establish that they have standing to sue.’” Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398, 19 408 (2013) (quoting Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811, 818 (1997)); see Lujan v. Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1990) (calling standing “the irreducible constitutional minimum”); see also Jibril v. Mayorkas, No. 19-cv-2457, 2023 WL 2240271, at *4 (D.D.C. Feb. 27, 2023) (“One way a court might lack subject- matter jurisdiction is if a plaintiff lacks Article III standing.” (citing Haase v. Sessions, 835 F.2d 902, 906 (D.C. Cir. 1987))). To establish standing, “a plaintiff must show (1) an ‘injury in fact,’ (2) a sufficient ‘causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of,’ and (3) a ‘likel[ihood]’ that the injury ‘will be redressed by a favorable decision.’” Susan B. Anthony List, 573 U.S. at 157-58 (alteration in original) (quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61). “The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing these elements.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561 (citing FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 231 (1990)). “Since they are not mere pleading requirements but rather an indispensable part of the plaintiff’s case, each element must be supported in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof, i.e., with the manner and degree of evidence required at the successive stages of the litigation.” Id. 20  Courts have recognized that plaintiffs can establish standing based on an informational injury. See Am. Soc’y for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. Feld Ent., Inc., 659 F.3d 13, 22 (D.C. Cir. 2011). And an “actual economic loss” is “a classic form of concrete and particularized harm” that suffices by itself to ground Article III standing. Humane Soc’y of the U.S. v. Vilsack, 797 F.3d 4, 9 (D.C. Cir. 2015). b. Analysis Ms. Phang argues that she has two redressable injuries: first, she has suffered cognizable informational injuries, see Mot., ECF No. 9-1 at 18–21; and second, she has suffered cognizable economic injuries. Id. at 21. The Attorney General responds that Ms. Phang is not suffering a cognizable informational injury, and that her economic injury is not redressable. See Opp’n, ECF No. 12 at 18–19. For the reasons explained below, the Court concludes that Ms. Phang likely suffers from informational injuries and her economic injury Likely is redressable. i. Ms. Phang Likely Has Suffered a Cognizable Informational Injury It is well-settled that “a denial of access to information qualifies as an injury in fact where a statute (on the claimants’ reading) requires that the information be publicly disclosed and there is no reason to doubt their claim that the 21 information would help them.” Campaign Legal Ctr. v. FEC, 31 F.4th 781, 783 (D.C. Cir. 2022). To demonstrate that they have an actionable informational injury, a plaintiff must show that: “(1) it has been deprived of information that, on its interpretation, a statute requires the government or a third party to disclose to it, and (2) it suffers, by being denied access to that information, the type of harm Congress sought to prevent by requiring disclosure.” Friends of Animals v. Jewell, 828 F.3d 989, 992 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (citing FEC v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11, 21-22 (1998)). “[T]he fact that a number of people could be similarly injured does not render the claim an impermissible generalized grievance[.]” Pub. Citizen, Inc. v. Nat’l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., 489 F.3d 1279, 1292 (D.C. Cir. 2007). And “[t]he fact that other citizens or groups of citizens” are also deprived of the information a plaintiff seeks “does not lessen [a plaintiff’s] asserted injury, any more than the fact that numerous citizens might request the same information under the [FOIA] entails that those who have been denied access do not possess a sufficient basis to sue.” Pub. Citizen v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., 491 U.S. 440, 449-50 (1989). Even if the statute “entitles the public generally to the disclosure of” the information, “that does not mean that the informational injury . . . is not particular to Plaintiff.” Elec. Priv. Info. Ctr. v. 22 Presidential Advisory Comm’n on Election Integrity, 266 F. Supp. 3d 297, 311 (D.D.C. 2017). Ms. Phang argues that she satisfies the first part of the test because she “reads the statute to require a host of disclosures that have not occurred” and because disclosure is owed to the “public at large.” Mot., ECF No. 9-1 at 19 (quoting Citizens for Resp. & Ethics in Wash. v. Off. of Mgmt. & Budget, 791 F. Supp. 3d 29, 46 (D.D.C. 2025)). The Attorney General disagrees, arguing that: (1) Ms. Phang does not “allege any harm or individualized interests separate from ‘the interests of the public at large,’” Opp’n, ECF No. 12 at 17 (quoting Hein v. Freedom From Religion Found., Inc., 551 U.S. 587, 600 (2007)); (2) she does not have a “personal ‘statutory right to seek the information’ at issue,” id. at 18 (quoting Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Int’l Dev. Fin. Corp., 77 F.4th 679, 686 (D.C. Cir. 2023)); and (3) because the statute is directed at the government, she has no legally protected interest to assert. Id. (citing Ctr. for Biological Diversity, 77. F.4th at 686). The Attorney General’s arguments are unpersuasive. As to his first argument, his reliance on Hein is inapposite since it is not an informational injury case. As to his second and third arguments, Center for Biological Diversity supports Ms. Phang’s argument rather than his. There, plaintiffs sued the U.S. International Development Finance 23 Corporation (“DFC”) under the APA and the Sunshine Act, a statute directed at the government, after the DFC published a rule exempting itself from the Sunshine Act. “Congress enacted the Sunshine Act to open the deliberations of multi-member federal agencies to public view.” Common Cause v. Nuclear Reg. Comm'n, 674 F.2d 921, 928 (D.C. Cir. 1982). It requires, among other things, a public announcement of meetings and logistical information about them, and the right to a transcript, recording, or minutes of any closed portion of a meeting. Cnt. for Biological Diversity, 77 F.4th at 686. The court held that Center for Biological Diversity (“CBD”) had informational standing with regard to the first part of the test, because “[o]n its interpretation of the Sunshine Act, CBD claims that it was denied notice about certain meetings, preventing it from attending and engaging with DFC.” Id. The court explained that “[g]iven Congress’s clear command for any agency subject to the Sunshine Act to provide robust public information, there can be no doubt that these provisions create a right to information sufficient for [the plaintiff’s] injury.” Id. As this Court has explained, “[e]ven if the statute ‘entitles the public generally to the disclosure of’ the information [from the government], ‘that does not mean that the informational injury ... is not particular to Plaintiff.’” Citizens for Resp. & Ethics in Wash., 791 F. Supp. 3d at 46 (citing Elec. Priv. Info. Ctr., 266 F. 24 Supp. 3d at 311). The Epstein Act requires “robust” disclosure of information by the government to the public. The Court concludes that Ms. Phang satisfies the first part of the test: on her interpretation of the Epstein Act, it requires the information to be disclosed to her as part of the public at large, and the Attorney General’s alleged failure to comply with the law deprives her of this information. See e.g., Akins, 524 U.S. at 20–25 (emphasizing that an “inability to obtain information” that Congress required to make public constitutes an injury in fact for Article III). Ms. Phang argues that she satisfies the second part of the test because she is suffering the type of harm that Congress sought to prevent in enacting the Act. Ms. Phang argues first that “Congress enacted the Act to provide ‘complete truth’ for survivors;” Mot., ECF No. 9-1 at 19 (quoting 171 Cong. Rec. H4726 (daily ed. Nov. 18, 2025) (statement of Rep. Raskin)); and to “achieve ‘maximum possible level of transparency when it comes to the heinous crimes of Jeffrey Epstein.’” Id. (quoting 171 Cong. Rec. H4727 (daily ed. Nov. 18, 2025) (statement of Rep. Kiley)); see also id. at 19 n.7 (listing more statements from congressional representatives noting the purpose of the Act is transparency for the American public). Ms. Phang then argues that to realize these goals, journalists “through their 25 reporting are able to mediate the contents of the Epstein Files for the general public.” Id. at 20. The Attorney General disagrees, arguing that Ms. Phang cannot demonstrate “downstream harm—some concrete consequences of not receiving the information,” but that “[a]t best, [Ms. Phang] asserts generalized grievances of seeking ‘complete truth’ and ‘transparency.’” Opp’n, ECF No. 12 at 18–19. The Attorney General’s arguments are unpersuasive. First, Ms. Phang has identified “some concrete consequences of not receiving the information.” Id. at 18. She has identified “half a dozen stories she is currently unable to report” because the Attorney General has not disclosed the information. See Reply, ECF No. 13 at 8-9 (citing Phang Decl., ECF No. 9-2 ¶¶ 14–31). She has identified harms to victims and the public who are being denied the benefit of her reporting. Mot., ECF No. 9-1 at 20. She also cited authority that supports her assertion that journalists, and herself in particular, have suffered the type of harm that the Epstein Act was meant to prevent. See Mot., ECF No. 9-1 at 20–21 (citing Seife v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 440 F. Supp. 254 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) and Pub. Citizen v. Carlin, 2 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 1997), rev’d on other grounds, 184 F.3d 900 (D.C. Cir. 1999)). The Attorney General does not address this authority. See generally Opp’n, ECF No. 12 at 18. Second, “the fact that a number of people could be similarly 26 injured does not render the claim an impermissible generalized grievance: ‘where a harm is concrete, though widely shared, the Court has found injury in fact.’” Pub. Citizen, Inc., 489 F.3d at 1292 (quoting Akins, 524 U.S. at 24). The Court concludes that Ms. Phang satisfies the second part of the test: she is suffering the type of harm—lack of transparency—that Congress sought to prevent by requiring disclosure of the information and the disclosure of the information that Ms. Phang seeks would help her in her work. See e.g., Jewell, 828 F.3d at 992 (“[T]he existence and scope of an injury for informational standing purposes is defined by Congress: a plaintiff seeking to demonstrate that it has informational standing, generally ‘need not allege any additional harm beyond the one Congress identified.’” (quoting Spokeo, Inc. v. Robbins, 578 U.S. 330, 342 (2016))). For all these reasons, Ms. Phang has established that she likely is suffering from an informational injury. ii. Ms. Phang’s Econom