Ghislaine Maxwell, the longtime associate of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, formally urged the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday to overturn her 2021 sex trafficking conviction—while her legal team made an unusual parallel appeal: to President Donald Trump.
In a bold statement released Monday, Maxwell’s attorney David Oscar Markus claimed that his client has been unfairly "scapegoated" for Epstein’s crimes and said he was appealing not only to the judicial branch but also directly to President Trump, who returned to office earlier this year.
“We are appealing not only to the Supreme Court but to the President himself to recognize how profoundly unjust it is to scapegoat Ghislaine Maxwell for Epstein’s crimes,” Markus said. “Especially when the government promised she would not be prosecuted.”
The request marks a high-stakes push from Maxwell’s camp as the justices prepare to consider whether to hear her case after their summer recess. At the heart of Maxwell’s appeal is a disputed 2007 nonprosecution agreement (NPA) that Epstein reached with federal prosecutors in Florida—a deal her attorneys argue should have shielded her from charges brought in New York more than a decade later.
Legal Argument Hinges on 2007 Epstein Deal
In 2007, Epstein signed a controversial plea deal with the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of Florida, allowing him to avoid federal prosecution in exchange for a guilty plea to state-level sex crimes. He served just 13 months in a county jail under a work-release program.
Maxwell, who was convicted in 2021 of aiding Epstein in the trafficking and sexual abuse of underage girls, claims this agreement also protected her. However, lower courts have consistently rejected that argument, ruling the Florida deal applied only to that district—not to federal prosecutors in New York who later brought charges against Maxwell.
The Supreme Court now faces the decision of whether to weigh in on the scope and enforceability of the 2007 agreement.
In the latest filing, Markus accused the Justice Department of attempting to “distract” from the central legal issue with emotionally charged details of Epstein’s conduct.
“This case is about what the government promised, not what Epstein did,” Markus wrote. “Rather than grapple with the core principles of plea agreements, the government tries to distract by reciting a lurid and irrelevant account of Jeffrey Epstein’s misconduct.”
President Trump’s Potential Role: A Political Wild Card
While Maxwell’s legal team continues its judicial appeal, they are also increasingly vocal about seeking political intervention. In comments to reporters on Monday, President Trump acknowledged the possibility of issuing a pardon for Maxwell, stating, “I’m allowed to give her” one—but added, “Nobody’s approached me.”
Still, Trump’s response didn’t close the door, and Markus’s comments marked his clearest overture yet to the current president. “We’re going to take one day at a time,” he said on Friday, suggesting more direct contact may be considered soon.
Trump’s prior comments about Maxwell have drawn scrutiny. In 2020, during his first term in office, he said of her arrest, “I wish her well,” which triggered a wave of criticism and speculation. The president has denied any wrongdoing or close ties to Epstein or Maxwell, though both were photographed with him at various social events in the early 2000s.
With pressure growing on the Trump administration and law enforcement agencies to release more information from the so-called “Epstein files,” any perceived political involvement in Maxwell’s case could add more fuel to an already controversial issue.
Justice Department Pushes Back
The Justice Department remains firm in its opposition to Maxwell’s appeal. In a court filing, Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote that Maxwell’s claim “is incorrect” and that the 2007 agreement has no bearing outside of Florida.
“This case would also be an unsuitable vehicle for addressing the matters raised,” Sauer added, signaling the government’s belief that Maxwell’s arguments lack broad legal significance or application.
Complicating matters further, Maxwell recently sat for a two-day interview with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche. Details of that meeting have not been disclosed, but its timing suggests ongoing legal maneuvering behind the scenes—possibly linked to broader investigations or negotiations.
What’s Next
The Supreme Court will consider Maxwell’s petition when it reconvenes from its summer recess. If the Court declines to hear the case, her conviction and 20-year prison sentence will stand. If the justices agree to review it, the case could have far-reaching implications for the scope of plea deals and nonprosecution agreements in federal law.
