Ghislaine Maxwell asked the Supreme Court on Monday to throw out her conviction for sex trafficking minors, arguing she should have been shielded from prosecution under a sweeping 2007 plea agreement Jeffrey Epstein secured with federal prosecutors in Florida.

The response brief to the high court arrives just days after Maxwell, a former British socialite now serving a 20-year sentence, sat down with a top Justice Department official, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, who is reexamining the long-dormant Epstein probe. It also comes amid growing political pressure on the Trump administration to release long-promised files related to Epstein’s trafficking network.

Recommended Stories

• Courts still finding ways to issue sweeping injunctions month after Supreme Court ruling
• Trump's deportation machine advances despite court hurdles
• Ratcliffe suggests Clinton, Brennan won't have statute of limitations protection in Russiagate case

“Petitioner’s alleged status as Epstein’s co-conspirator was the entire basis of her prosecution,” the 11-page filing stated. “The [non-prosecution agreement (NPA)]’s language demonstrates that the parties anticipated that there were additional co-conspirators beyond those already known … Accordingly, Petitioner can rely on the immunity clause in the NPA.”

Maxwell’s legal team, led by criminal defense attorneys Mona and David Oscar Markus, argues that the plain text of Epstein’s 2007 deal with the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of Florida grants immunity not just to four listed individuals, but also to unnamed “potential co-conspirators.”

The controversial plea deal, which helped Epstein avoid serious prison time in exchange for pleading guilty to two state prostitution charges, stated: “The United States agrees that it will not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein, including but not limited to” four named individuals.

Maxwell’s lawyers contend that the phrase “including but not limited to” was a deliberate signal that federal prosecutors extended the non-prosecution agreement (NPA) to cover any additional individuals, regardless of whether their names were known at the time.

“Whether the government attorneys personally knew the identities of every such person is beside the point,” Maxwell’s petition stated. “They certainly knew there could be others … the broad language of the NPA evidences an intent to cover whoever might later be deemed a co-conspirator.”

The Supreme Court appeal marks Maxwell’s most aggressive legal maneuver since her 2022 conviction on federal sex trafficking charges stemming from her decades-long partnership with Epstein, who died in a Manhattan jail cell in 2019. The case has remained a political flashpoint, as well as a source of persistent conspiracy theories, over alleged elite involvement in Epstein’s trafficking ring.

The Justice Department, for its part, maintains that Maxwell was never covered by the deal, arguing that the U.S. attorney who brokered the agreement, Alex Acosta, did not have the authority to bind prosecutors in other jurisdictions, such as the Southern District of New York, where Maxwell was ultimately charged and convicted.

“The government was not even aware of [Maxwell’s] role in Epstein’s scheme at that time,” DOJ attorneys wrote in a brief, describing her as “at most, an incidental third-party beneficiary of the agreement.”

Adding to the legal intrigue, federal appeals courts have split on whether a plea deal negotiated by one U.S. Attorney’s Office binds the entire federal government. That circuit divide could increase the likelihood the justices agree to hear the case.

President Donald Trump has not formally weighed in on Maxwell’s appeal but has faced mounting scrutiny for backpedaling on promises to release Epstein-related records. Maxwell met for two consecutive days with Blanche, Trump’s former criminal defense attorney, who is now leading a broader internal probe of the Epstein saga.

According to attorney Markus, Maxwell “was asked maybe about 100 different people” during the interviews with Blanche last week and “answered every single question.” He emphasized that the meeting was voluntary and said no promises were made in exchange for her cooperation.

“We haven’t spoken to the president or anybody about a pardon just yet,” Markus said. “The president this morning said he had the power to do so. We hope he exercises that power in the right and just way.”

President Trump told reporters on Friday that he hadn’t considered a pardon for Maxwell but declined to rule one out, saying only, “We’ll see what happens.”

Maxwell’s petition also referenced the 2012 case United States v. Florida West International Airways, in which a court dismissed an indictment based on a similarly broad plea agreement — a decision her attorneys argue should guide the outcome here.

The 2007 deal with Epstein has long been criticized as a sweetheart arrangement, with scrutiny peaking during Trump’s first term when Acosta was tapped to lead the Labor Department. He resigned in 2019 amid renewed attention to the case.

GHISLAINE MAXWELL GRANTED LIMITED IMMUNITY TO MEET WITH DOJ

In 2020, the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility concluded that Acosta exercised “poor judgment” by cutting the deal and failing to notify Epstein’s victims, a violation of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act.

The Supreme Court is expected to consider whether to take up Maxwell’s petition later this year. Until then, she remains incarcerated at FCI Tallahassee.