The move by two lawmakers in the United States Congress to have an outside observer supervise the work of the Justice Department regarding the Jeffrey Epstein files suffered a setback this week. A federal judge in the state of New York blocked the move, indicating the matter was not properly before the court in the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s associate.The representatives, Ro Khanna, a Democrat from California, and Thomas Massie, a Republican from Kentucky, asked the court to appoint a special master or a neutral monitor to ensure that the government was following a statute requiring it to release documents related to Epstein files and Maxwell.Representatives were told by Judge Englemayer that it was not the appropriate way to seek relief with respect to the case involving Maxwell and were directed to file a lawsuit if they sought relief.Federal judge rejects lawmakers' request for special master to monitor Epstein filesKhanna and Massie are the sponsors of the “Epstein Files Transparency Act” which was passed by Congress and signed into law towards the end of last year. The law mandated that the Department of Justice make public documents related to investigations of sex trafficking rings conducted by Epstein files, with very limited exceptions for privacy and national security reasons. However, it seems that the Department of Justice has taken too long to comply with the deadline set under this law, which is December 19th.In early January, the DOJ announced that it had released just over 12,000 documents, amounting to 125,000 pages, which is just a fraction of the over 2 million documents that could potentially be released under the law.This slow process led Khanna and Massie to ask Judge Engelmayer to intervene. They felt that having a monitor appointed by the court could ensure that this department complies with what is required by law, particularly in regard to redaction, among other issues related to victims’ privacy.The Justice Department responded: "First, the members of Congress lack standing in the case of Maxwell because they are not parties to the criminal case before the court, and there is no authority permitting the court to provide relief of the sort requested by the members of Congress." The prosecutors added:"The materials remain under review and redaction to protect victims, but the case now before the court is the case following the conviction of Maxwell, and it does not confer jurisdiction over the transparency statute."Judge Engelmayer agreed with the assessment. In his ruling, the judge acknowledged that the matter at hand was of importance to the representatives, but that it was not possible for the court to monitor the DOJ's compliance with the act in the Maxwell matter. However, the judge pointed out that the matter could be pursued through a lawsuit if the two representatives wish to do so, or through the powers of Congress if they desire to act on the matter. The move does not settle the issue of whether the Epstein files will be unsealed. Members of Congress, who have called on the government to open the files, are sure to continue the pressure, but the Justice Department will go on with its process of reviewing the files without a monitor.