General Discussion

There would be no "review" of the facts of her prosecution. The issues presented relate wholly to the meaning of the non-prosecution agreement between the Florida US Attorney's Office and Epstein. Maxwell contends that her appeal presents a straightforward and important question about whether a U.S. Attorney’s non-prosecutio made on behalf of “the United States” binds the entire United States or just the district in which it was made and argues that there is a split in the circuits on the question. The administration argues that the conflicting "default" positions of the different circuits is not actually in issue here because whether the non-prosecution was intended to apply only in Florida or nationwide is a question of contract interpretation. The administration, pointing to language in the agreement that expressly stated that it only limited prosecution of Epstein in "this district" -- i.e., Florida -- means that the intent was to permit prosecution in other districts, as actually did occur with respect to Epstein. Resolving these conflicting arguments is all that the Court would have to decide --the facts of Maxwell's prosecution aren't relevant -- either she was subject to prosecution or not.

I think there is a good chance that the Court will side with the administration because the contract interpretation issue allows it to avoid addressing an alleged circuit split that might not actually be dispositive in this case. But I could be wrong about that and they'll take the case. Of course, if they do, they still might rule against Maxwell since granting cert doesn't ensure that the decision below will be reversed.