The U.S. Supreme Court has opted not to review the appeal of Ghislaine Maxwell, a notable figure linked to the late Jeffrey Epstein. Maxwell, serving a 20-year sentence following her conviction for sex trafficking a minor and other charges, had sought the Supreme Court’s intervention to challenge a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. Her argument centered on a 2007 non-prosecution agreement between Epstein and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida, which she contended should have shielded her from certain charges brought by the Southern District of New York.
Maxwell’s legal team argued that the language of the agreement, which referenced “the United States” rather than a specific district, was intended to extend its protections nationwide to Epstein’s “potential co-conspirators.” However, the 2nd Circuit held that such agreements are typically confined to the jurisdiction of the district where they were negotiated unless explicitly stated otherwise, as shown in their decision.
In a separate argument, Maxwell suggested that the 2nd Circuit’s ruling highlighted a divergence among circuit courts on how broadly to interpret the scope of non-prosecution agreements. While the 2nd Circuit requires explicit language for nationwide applicability, other circuits, such as the 3rd, 4th, 8th, and 9th, have in some instances presumed broader implications of similar agreements.
The government, represented by U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, countered Maxwell’s position by describing the co-conspirators clause in Epstein’s deal as “highly unusual,” positing that its specific interpretation does not require the Supreme Court’s review. This viewpoint was articulated in their response to Maxwell’s petition.
The Supreme Court published its refusal to hear Maxwell’s certiorari petition within its recent order list, coming out of its “long conference” held on September 29. This case was one of over 30 petitions denied at the conference. For further details on the Court’s decision, visit SCOTUSblog.