Rejection of the habeas petition

US District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer issued a 67-page opinion rejecting Ghislaine Maxwell's bid to overturn her sex trafficking conviction and vacate her 20-year prison term. Maxwell, who represented herself in the post-conviction proceeding, submitted a petition under Section 2255 seeking a writ of habeas corpus, alleging constitutional violations during trial and sentencing. Engelmayer dismissed the claims as meritless, frivolous, and demonstrably ungrounded in fact, ruling that none of the arguments disturbed the trial verdict. Maxwell, who is 63 or 64 years old depending on court records, is serving her sentence at a federal prison in Texas with an eligibility release date in 2037. Federal prosecutors had previously urged the court to deny the motion, arguing that her assertions were baseless, filed out of time, and contradicted by the trial record.

“Maxwell's petition falls very far from the mark. There is no fact that Maxwell fairly puts in dispute that has any potential to disturb the outcome of her trial.”

The transparency records argument

Maxwell's legal challenge leaned heavily on government documents released under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, a measure passed with near-unanimous congressional support in November 2025. The legislation compelled the Department of Justice to publish 3.5 million pages of investigative records connected to the late financier Jeffrey Epstein. In her petition, Maxwell claimed that private lawyers representing Epstein's accusers had operated as de facto prosecutors and agents of the government during her trial. Judge Engelmayer rejected this line of argument, finding that the unsealed records failed to demonstrate prosecutorial misconduct or legal error in her prosecution. The judge stated that the newly public material supported the government's case rather than clearing her.

“To the extent it is relevant, far from exculpating her, it incriminates her or reinforces the correctness of the legal rulings Maxwell challenges.”

Judicial findings and contradictions

The ruling identified contradictions within Maxwell's own submissions regarding her leadership role in Epstein's operations. To challenge a sentencing enhancement that extended her prison term, Maxwell claimed in her motion that she had largely exited Epstein's household by 2002. Engelmayer contrasted this claim with Maxwell's July 2025 interview with then-Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, in which she acknowledged managing Epstein's properties and personnel years after that date. The court noted that while Maxwell claimed she was unfairly singled out while other associates avoided charges, her petition neither identified co-conspirators in the abuse scheme nor acknowledged Epstein's criminal culpability. Engelmayer concluded that her filing offered speculation and distortion instead of admissible grounds for relief.

Procedural history of the case

Maxwell was convicted in December 2021 on five felony counts related to recruiting and trafficking underage girls for Epstein across more than a decade. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the guilty verdict in 2024, and the US Supreme Court declined to review the case in October 2025. In February 2026, Maxwell declined to answer questions before a committee of the House of Representatives, where her lawyer stated she would testify only if offered presidential clemency. Epstein, who was arrested on federal sex abuse charges in 2019 and previously pleaded guilty in Florida in 2008 to state solicitation charges, died by suicide in a Manhattan jail cell in August 2019. Tuesday's decision leaves Maxwell's conviction and sentence intact in Texas.