Ghislaine Maxwell, the convicted accomplice of Jeffrey Epstein, is moving forward with a rare pro se habeas corpus petition that could complicate efforts to make previously sealed records from her case public, according to recently filed court documents.
The legal action follows the signing of the Epstein Transparency Act by President Donald Trump, a law directing the Department of Justice to release records connected to Epstein’s investigation.
Legal experts note that pursuing the petition without representation presents a significant challenge due to the stringent standards involved.
Maxwell, 61, is serving a 20-year sentence for her role in conspiring with Epstein to sexually abuse minors.
Resist the Mainstream reported in August that she was transferred to the Federal Prison Camp in Bryan, Texas, a minimum-security facility, after consultations with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, formerly Trump’s personal attorney.
The move is reportedly tied to Maxwell’s cooperation in government inquiries and access to certain federal records.
In a letter to U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer, Maxwell’s lawyer, David Oscar Markus, detailed her intentions.
“Understanding that President Trump has signed the Epstein Transparency Act into law, Ms. Maxwell does not take a position regarding the government’s request to unseal the grand jury transcripts and modify the protective order,” Markus wrote, highlighting that her forthcoming habeas filing could be influenced by the release of sensitive documents.
Markus further explained that Maxwell plans to proceed independently.
“Releasing the grand jury materials from her case, which contain untested and unproven allegations, would create undue prejudice so severe that it would foreclose the possibility of a fair retrial should Ms. Maxwell’s habeas petition succeed,” he added, underscoring the tension between public transparency and her legal rights.
Filing a habeas petition without a lawyer is an unusual and high-risk strategy, according to Fox News. Legal analysts emphasize that these motions are typically the final avenue for appeal and are seldom granted.
New Jersey criminal defense attorney James Leonard Jr. noted, “Habeas motions are usually the last step in the appeals process and are rarely successful. Filing pro se makes the chance of success even lower.”
Victims and their legal representatives, however, have expressed support for the unsealing of materials.
Sigrid McCawley, attorney for Epstein survivor Annie Farmer, confirmed in a separate filing that her client backs the government’s effort to release grand jury transcripts and related evidence.
Federal judges are currently reviewing multiple requests to release Epstein-related documents under the new transparency law.
While previous petitions were denied, the law now sets a 30-day timeline for the Department of Justice to publish records, which could create conflict with Maxwell’s pending habeas petition.
Maxwell’s case has remained in the public eye since Epstein’s death, which was confirmed by the DOJ and FBI as a suicide earlier in the year.
The agencies also reported that Epstein did not maintain a “client list,” a claim that has fueled speculation among some political groups that key information may have been withheld.
The Trump administration has since launched an inquiry into Epstein’s connections with prominent figures, though officials have stated that no evidence has emerged to charge any “uncharged third parties.”
Maxwell’s legal challenge comes amid the presence of Trump’s name in the records, with the former president indicating he would “look into” her case, though advisers reportedly warn against issuing a pardon.
Maxwell previously sought Supreme Court review of her 2021 conviction, but the justices declined to intervene in October, according to The Hill.
Her upcoming pro se petition directly challenges her detention and, if granted—a highly unlikely outcome—could open the door to a retrial while raising questions about whether the materials should remain sealed.
Judges are expected to rule soon on the government’s motion to release the records.
The decision may pit statutory transparency requirements against Maxwell’s legal strategy, highlighting the delicate balance between public access, individual rights and the handling of high-profile federal cases.
