By Matthew Vadum
Contributing Writer
British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell urged the Supreme Court on Monday to toss her sex-trafficking convictions, alleging that the federal government violated an immunity deal when it prosecuted her.
The legal filing came after the former associate of the late Jeffrey Epstein met with Department of Justice officials on July 24. Epstein was a convicted sex offender who died in custody in 2019 while under indictment for sex trafficking.
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche previously said officials contacted Maxwell to figure out whether she “has information about anyone who has committed crimes against victims.”
Maxwell was convicted in December 2021 in New York on five counts of sex trafficking, including conspiracy to traffic minors. In June 2022, she was sentenced to 20 years in prison. She is currently incarcerated at a federal correctional institution in Tallahassee, Florida.
Maxwell argued in a petition she filed with the Supreme Court in April that the non-prosecution agreement that Epstein signed in 2007 means she shouldn’t have been prosecuted.
Specifically, she argues Epstein’s agreement with the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida should have prevented her from being prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York.
The agreement states that the government would “not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein,” according to the petition.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer said in a brief on July 14 that Maxwell’s appeal lacks merit and urged the justices to reject it.
The brief refers to Epstein as Maxwell’s “coconspirator.” From around 1994 to 2004, Maxwell “coordinated, facilitated and contributed to” Epstein’s “sexual abuse of numerous young women and underage girls.”
The brief said only Epstein and federal prosecutors in Florida were parties to the agreement.
“The government was not even aware of [Maxwell’s] role in Epstein’s scheme at the time.”
Maxwell is “at most, an incidental third-party beneficiary of the agreement,” the brief said.
In her Monday brief, Maxwell argued that she has “standing to enforce the agreement as a third-party beneficiary.”
Standing refers to the right of someone to sue in court. A party must show a strong enough connection to a claim to justify participation in a legal proceeding.
A U.S. attorney’s promise issued on behalf of the United States “binds the entire United States,” the brief said.
Because the government concedes that the federal courts of appeal disagree about the reach of non-prosecution agreements, the Supreme Court should intervene to resolve the issue, the brief said.
“Plea and non-prosecution agreements resolve nearly every federal case,” and routinely cover potential witnesses, family members and coconspirators, the brief said.
“If those promises mean different things in different parts of the country, then trust in our system collapses.”
Zachary Stieber contributed to this report.
