• Ghislaine Maxwell’s legal team has formally asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn her sex trafficking conviction, arguing that the federal government violated a binding agreement made with Jeffrey Epstein that extended immunity to his co-conspirators—an assertion with potentially sweeping implications for prosecutorial integrity nationwide.

WASHINGTON, D.C. (TDR) — Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell on Monday petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to hear her appeal, asserting that federal prosecutors unlawfully violated a non-prosecution agreement (NPA) made with the late Jeffrey Epstein—one that, they contend, explicitly shielded Maxwell from criminal charges.

“Plea and non-prosecution agreements resolve nearly every federal case,” the petition reads. “They routinely include promises that extend to others—co-conspirators, family members, potential witnesses. If those promises mean different things in different parts of the country, then trust in our system collapses.”

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10

At the heart of the dispute is whether the 2007 NPA—brokered by the Southern District of Florida—was legally binding on prosecutors in New York, who later brought the charges that led to Maxwell’s 2021 conviction on sex trafficking and conspiracy offenses. Federal prosecutors have repeatedly maintained that the NPA’s scope was limited to Florida and never applied to Maxwell, whom they argue was neither a signatory nor a party to the agreement.

A Binding Promise or Legal Fiction?

Maxwell’s counsel, David Oscar Markus, sharply disagreed in the petition filed Monday, arguing that the text of the agreement was unconditional.

“It is not geographically limited to the Southern District of Florida,” the brief states. “It is not conditioned on the co-conspirators being known by the government at the time. It does not depend on what any particular government attorney may have had in his or her head… and it contains no other caveat or exception.”

“This should be the end of the discussion.”

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE THE DUPREE REPORT

Are you glad President Trump is building the new WH ballroom?

By completing the poll, you agree to receive emails from The Dupree Report, occasional offers from our partners and that you've read and agree to our privacy policy and legal statement.

In their brief, Maxwell’s attorneys emphasized that her alleged involvement with Epstein was the “entire basis of her prosecution.” To now deny her the benefit of the same deal offered to Epstein, they argue, is not just inconsistent—it is unconstitutional.

“Our government made a deal, and it must honor it,” Markus said in a public statement. “The United States cannot promise immunity with one hand in Florida and prosecute with the other in New York.”

Markus also invoked President Trump, appealing to the current administration’s values of contract fidelity and legal fairness.

“President Trump built his legacy in part on the power of a deal—and surely he would agree that when the United States gives its word, it must stand by it,” he added. “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.”

DOJ Maintains Opposition

The Justice Department has urged the Supreme Court to deny Maxwell’s appeal, reiterating that she was never a party to the NPA and therefore has no standing to enforce it. Yet in a notable development, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche met with Maxwell in person last week, fueling speculation over the DOJ’s internal deliberations surrounding her ongoing legal efforts.

Maxwell is currently serving a 20-year sentence following her conviction on multiple federal charges for facilitating the sexual exploitation of underage girls by Epstein. Her legal team has long contended she is being used as a “symbolic substitute” for the deceased financier, whose mysterious death in federal custody in 2019 continues to generate public skepticism.

“No one is above the law—not even the Southern District of New York,” the defense concluded. “The government cannot break its word.”

Is Maxwell entitled to the legal protections promised to Epstein—or is this appeal merely an attempt to rewrite a deeply sordid chapter in American justice?

Follow The Dupree Report on YouTube

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10