The Supreme Court on Oct. 6 decided to not take up an appeal from convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell, who had asked the justices to toss her sex trafficking convictions.

Maxwell was an associate of the late Jeffrey Epstein, a convicted sex offender who died in custody in 2019 while under indictment for sex trafficking.

Maxwell had argued in the current case that the federal government violated an immunity deal when it prosecuted her.

The Supreme Court denied the petition in Maxwell v. United States in an unsigned order on Oct. 6, its first day in session after the summer recess. No justices dissented.

Maxwell was convicted in December 2021 in New York state on five counts of sex trafficking, including conspiracy to traffic minors. In June 2022, she was sentenced to 20 years in prison.

In September 2024, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld Maxwell’s conviction.

Maxwell argued in a petition filed with the Supreme Court that the non-prosecution agreement that Epstein signed in 2007 means that she should not have been prosecuted.

Specifically, she argued that Epstein’s agreement with the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida should have prevented her from being prosecuted by the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York.

The agreement states that the government will “not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein,” according to the petition.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer said in a brief on July 14 that Maxwell’s appeal was without merit and urged the justices to reject it.

The Justice Department brief refers to Epstein as Maxwell’s “coconspirator.” It states that from about 1994 to 2004, Maxwell “coordinated, facilitated, and contributed to” Epstein’s “sexual abuse of numerous young women and underage girls.”

The brief states that only Epstein and federal prosecutors in Florida were parties to the agreement.

“The government was not even aware of [Maxwell’s] role in Epstein’s scheme at the time,” the brief states.

“[Maxwell is] at most, an incidental third-party beneficiary of the agreement.”

In a July 28 brief, Maxwell argued that she has “standing to enforce the agreement as a third-party beneficiary.”

Standing refers to the right of someone to sue in court. A party must show a strong enough connection to a claim to justify participation in a legal proceeding.

A U.S. attorney’s promise offered on behalf of the United States “binds the entire United States,” Maxwell’s brief reads.

Because the government concedes that the federal courts of appeals disagree about the reach of non-prosecution agreements, the Supreme Court should intervene to resolve the issue, the brief states.

“Plea and non-prosecution agreements resolve nearly every federal case [and routinely cover potential witnesses, family members, and coconspirators],” the brief reads.

“If those promises mean different things in different parts of the country, then trust in our system collapses.”

This article by Matthew Vadum appeared Oct. 6, 2025, in The Epoch Times.