Ghislaine Maxwell Asks Supreme Court To Toss Out Sex-Trafficking Conviction

Ghislaine Maxwell asked the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) to toss out her conviction Monday, claiming the government broke its own immunity deal by prosecuting.

David Oscar Markus, Maxwell’s attorney, raised the question of whether a promise made by a U.S. Attorney on behalf of the United States legally binds the federal government. (RELATED: Republicans Just Killed The Epstein Files)

Oscar Markus filed a reply brief Monday asking SCOTUS to amend the Second Circuit’s ruling.

“This case presents a straightforward and important question about the government’s obligation to honor its promises in plea and non-prosecution agreements,” he wrote.

“[The] government advances on interpretation of its non-prosecution that flips its plain meaning on its head, ” he added. “Promising ‘not to prosecute’ somehow meant preserving the right to prosecute. This is not contract interpretation; it is alchemy.”

🚨BREAKING: Ghislaine Maxwell files appeal to the Supreme Court to overturn her sex trafficking conviction. pic.twitter.com/YGzAMG4ebu

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) July 28, 2025

Maxwell’s counsel based their argument on the 2008 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) involving Jeffrey Epstein in the Southern District of Florida.

“The very premise of Petitioner’s argument is that the parties to the NPA did seek to control the scope of the relevant clauses by narrowing the scope of immunity for Epstein through the use of narrow language specifying enforceability only in the Southern District of Florida, and then expanding the scope of it as to his co-conspirators by using the broad term ‘the United States,’” the documents stated.

Markus claimed, “as the government acknowledges,” the starting point in a contract is the text itself, and he argued the promise made in Epstein’s agreement is unconditional. (RELATED: Attorney Who Secured Jeffrey Epstein’s Sweetheart Plea Deal Dies)

Markus contended the immunity deal is not limited to a specific location like the Southern District of Florida, claiming it does not depend on whether the co-conspirators were known to the government at the time. The documents asserted the deal does not depend on any individual prosecutor’s understanding of who the co-conspirators might be.

Additionally, the reply examines the role of plea agreements and argues the government’s deal in this case was flawed and lacked legal standing.

“Plea agreements are supposed to be strictly construed against the government, yet here the government isn’t even asking for the benefit of the doubt; it is asking for a blank check to rewrite its own promise after the fact,” the documents read.

It further urges the court to review the lower court’s decision and ensure a consistent rule is applied across all circuit courts.

Statement from Ghislaine Maxwell’s family has been released. pic.twitter.com/pXxAvmVDsP

— Merissa Hansen (@merissahansen17) July 15, 2025

Jeffrey Epstein’s legal team argued that his 2008 nonprosecution deal would prevent him from facing new sex trafficking charges in New York for crimes committed between 2002 and 2005, according to a 2021 Courthouse New Service report.

Prosecutors disagreed, but the question was left unresolved when Epstein died in federal custody a month after his arrest, according to the report.

When Maxwell was later indicted in the same district, she claimed she should be protected by a clause in Epstein’s plea agreement. The deal reportedly stated that if Epstein followed the terms of the deal, the government would not pursue charges against his potential co-conspirators.

The agreement specifically named three of Epstein’s associates — Sarah Kellen, Nadia Marcinkova and Lesley Groff — but did not mention Maxwell, according to the report.

Judge Alison Nathan rejected Maxwell’s claim that Epstein’s 2008 agreement protected her from prosecution.

In a 2021 34-page ruling, the judge also decided to split Maxwell’s perjury charges from the rest of the criminal case against her.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) asked the Supreme Court July 14 to reject Maxwell’s appeal and uphold her sex trafficking conviction.

The DOJ noted that in 2007, then-U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta made a deal allowing Epstein to plead guilty to state charges to avoid federal prosecution. Acosta later served as Trump’s Labor Secretary during his first term.

Solicitor General John Sauer argued in a brief that it would make little sense for the agreement to still allow Epstein to face federal charges in another district while shielding his co-conspirators, like Maxwell, from prosecution anywhere.

Markus told reporters on Friday that Maxwell answered questions about nearly 100 individuals allegedly connected to Jeffrey Epstein. (RELATED: House Oversight Committee Votes To Subpoena Ghislaine Maxwell For Deposition)

🚨 BREAKING: The Feds just gave Ghislaine Maxwell “LIMITED IMMUNITY” while she answered all their questions about “100 DIFFERENT PEOPLE” related to Epstein 🚨 pic.twitter.com/ovoQeYlL3y

— Jesse Watters (@JesseBWatters) July 26, 2025