Ghislaine Maxwell’s latest bid for freedom has hit a wall as the Department of Justice urges the Supreme Court to dismiss her appeal. The former associate of Jeffrey Epstein, currently serving a 20-year sentence for her role in his horrific abuse of underage girls, is grasping at legal straws to escape accountability.

According to ABC News, the DOJ made its stance clear on Monday, arguing that Maxwell’s claims lack merit and should not be entertained by the nation’s highest court. Maxwell, 63, contends a 2007 non-prosecution agreement with Epstein should shield her from prosecution, but the government isn’t buying it.

Maxwell’s legal troubles began long before her 2021 conviction on five of six counts, including conspiracy and sex trafficking of minors. Prosecutors painted a damning picture of her as a central figure in Epstein’s multi-state scheme, grooming vulnerable girls for abuse. Her role, they argued, was not peripheral but pivotal.

Challenging a Controversial Agreement

At the heart of Maxwell’s appeal is a co-conspirator clause in Epstein’s 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) with Florida prosecutors. She claims it should bar her prosecution in New York, asserting the language implies nationwide protection. Yet, she wasn’t even named among the four assistants explicitly covered by the deal.

The DOJ counters that the Florida U.S. Attorney’s Office, under R. Alexander Acosta, had no authority to bind other federal districts. Their brief notes there’s no evidence of approval from other districts or the DOJ’s Criminal Division. This isn’t a loophole; it’s a dead end.

“That contention is incorrect, and petitioner does not show that it would succeed in any court of appeals,” wrote U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer. With both a district court and a federal appeals court already rejecting Maxwell’s argument, the DOJ sees no reason to revisit this flimsy defense.

Intent and Awareness in Question

Even if the clause could be stretched to apply nationwide, the DOJ insists there’s no proof it was meant to protect Maxwell. Sauer pointed out the government wasn’t even aware of her involvement in Epstein’s crimes at the time of the agreement. Calling her an “incidental third-party beneficiary” at best, the DOJ dismantles any notion of entitlement.

Maxwell’s attorneys argue otherwise, claiming, “Despite the existence of a non-prosecution agreement promising in plain language that the United States would not prosecute any co-conspirator of Jeffrey Epstein, the United States in fact prosecuted Ghislaine Maxwell.” This plea for immunity reeks of desperation, ignoring the specific context and limits of the NPA.

Her lawyer, David Oscar Markus, took a curious jab, saying, “I’d be surprised if President Trump knew his lawyers were asking the Supreme Court to let the government break a deal.” While the appeal to deal-making integrity is a clever nod, it sidesteps the gravity of Maxwell’s crimes and the legal reality of her situation.

Victims’ Voices Echo Loudly

Sigrid McCawley, representing numerous Epstein victims, didn’t mince words in her statement to ABC News: “Maxwell does not deserve any protection, and she should remain in prison for the horrific crimes she committed.” After decades of alleged abuse, the call for justice from survivors remains unflinching.

Then-U.S. Attorney Damian Williams echoed this sentiment post-verdict, stating, “A unanimous jury has found Ghislaine Maxwell guilty of one of the worst crimes imaginable—facilitating and participating in the sexual abuse of children.” That conviction wasn’t a fluke; it was a reckoning for years of predatory behavior.

Maxwell’s plea of not guilty did little to sway the jury, who saw through to her “key role” in befriending and grooming minors for Epstein. The evidence was overwhelming, painting a picture of calculated cruelty. Legal technicalities shouldn’t erase that truth.

Accountability Over Technicalities

As Maxwell pushes for Supreme Court review, the DOJ remains steadfast in urging denial of her petition for certiorari. Their position is clear: no backdoor deal from 2007 can undo the justice delivered in 2021. This isn’t about breaking promises; it’s about upholding consequences.

From a conservative lens, this case cuts to the core of personal responsibility—a principle often lost in today’s culture of excuses. While some might see government overreach in ignoring old agreements, the severity of Maxwell’s actions demands she face the full weight of her choices.

Maxwell’s appeal may be her last shot, but if the DOJ has its way, her 20-year sentence will stand as a reminder that no one is above the law—not even the well-connected.