The Trump administration has urged the Supreme Court to reject an appeal from Ghislaine Maxwell, the convicted sex trafficker and former associate of Jeffrey Epstein.
Maxwell, 63, is serving a 20-year prison sentence in Florida for conspiring with Epstein to sexually abuse underage girls.
Her lawyers had asked the court to review her conviction, arguing she was protected under a 2008 non-prosecution agreement Epstein struck with prosecutors in Florida.
“That contention is incorrect, and petitioner does not show that it would succeed in any court of appeals,” wrote D John Sauer, the US solicitor-general.
The move comes amid growing anger from Donald Trump’s Maga base, many of whom have accused the administration of suppressing evidence of Epstein’s alleged connections to powerful individuals.
List ‘sitting on my desk’
Their frustration intensified after Pam Bondi, the attorney general, announced that the Justice Department had closed its Epstein investigation, claiming there was “no incriminating client list” or evidence to suggest he had blackmailed high-profile figures.
Just months earlier, Ms Bondi had said such a list was “sitting on my desk”.
The backlash has triggered the largest internal rebellion Trump has faced since returning to the White House in January.
In response, aides are reportedly considering steps to placate supporters, including removing redactions from Epstein-related files and appointing a special counsel to re-examine the case.
Maxwell was convicted in December 2021 of five federal counts relating to her role in Epstein’s abuse network.
During her six-week trial, four women testified that Maxwell had recruited and groomed them for Epstein at his homes in New York, New Mexico, Florida and the Virgin Islands.
Her legal team argued that the original deal Epstein struck in 2008, which protected his co-conspirators, should have also applied to Maxwell.
“A defendant should be able to rely on a promise that the United States will not prosecute again, without being subject to a gotcha in some other jurisdiction that chooses to interpret that plain language promise in some other way,” wrote David Markus, Maxwell’s lawyer.