TheSupreme Courtis set to consider whether to take upGhislaine Maxwell's appeal Sept. 29, offering the convicted sex trafficker the hope that she will get out of prison well before serving her full 20-year sentence. Maxwell filed an appealwith the high court April 10, arguing that her conviction for sex trafficking a minor to financier Jeffrey Epstein should be thrown out.Epstein was convicted in 2008of soliciting minors for prostitution and died in a Manhattan jail in 2019 while awaiting a sex-trafficking trial. Maxwell has been in the news lately because the Justice Department and members of Congress have turned to her for information about Epstein and any other potential criminal associates, after the Trump administration faced outrage in July for announcing itwouldn't release the government's files on Epstein. The 63-year-old former British socialite gave two days of interviews in July in whichshe maintained her innocenceand failed to provide any obvious leads for investigators. Still, she wasmoved to a cushier prison, upsetting Epstein and Maxwell accusers in particular, who said she didn't deserve preferential treatment in light of her crimes. Here's a look at what comes next for Maxwell: Maxwell is arguing that prosecutors should never have been able to go after her because of the terms of aplea deal Epstein signed in 2007, months before he formally pleaded guilty in 2008 to two Florida state prostitution offenses. The deal included a provision protecting potential Epstein co-conspirators from criminal charges. That means federal prosecutors weren't allowed to go after her, Maxwell says. TheSupreme Courtshould ensure "that when the United States makes a promise in a plea agreement, it is held to that promise," she said inher high court petition. The Justice Department has told the Supreme Court the prosecution against Maxwell was permissible because the 2007-2008 deal with Epstein only applied to prosecutions in the Southern District of Florida, whereas Maxwell was prosecuted in the Southern District of New York. That point is clear when the provision protecting potential co-conspirators is read in the context of the other language in the plea agreement, according to the Justice Department. "Among other things, the (plea agreement) invoked 'the authority of R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney (USAO) for the Southern District of Florida,' and listed only officials of that USAO in the signature block," according to the department'sbrief to the Supreme court. That shows "the agreement was with the USAO, not the entire DOJ." Generally speaking, the chances that an appeal to the Supreme Court succeeds are low. First, the high court would need to agree to review an appeal – a decision that typically allows the different parties in to file more briefs and present oral arguments before the justices render a decision. According to the U.S. Courts system,only about 1-2% of appeals are accepted for revieweach year. Maxwell's appeal is being considered in the Supreme Court's "long conference" – an event in which the justices consider as many as 2,000 petitions that have accumulated over their summer break. Statistically speaking, the chances that an appeal from that conference is reviewed are even lower. Since 2015, the justices have agreed to review anywhere from five to 15 of those petitions,according to SCOTUSblog, a news site devoted to the Supreme Court. That's consistently less than 1%. Maxwell's strongest argument in her appeal may have less to do with her case in particular and more to do with how her case could impact other cases. According to her appeal, intermediate appeals courts in different parts of the country don't see eye to eye about whether an agreement from federal prosecutors in one part of the country binds federal prosecutors somewhere else. If the Supreme Court takes up her appeal, it can resolve that question not just for her, but for everyone in the country who faces it, according to her appeal. However, the Justice Department shot back that the Epstein agreement's language makes it clear the agreement didn't bind New York federal prosecutors in their case against Maxwell. Even if some other agreements in the country purport to bind federal prosecutors across all jurisdictions, Maxwell's case isn't the right vehicle to address that, according to the department's brief. The Supreme Court will likely parse through those arguments as it decides whether Maxwell's case is worth its limited time. The Supreme Court could decide whether to review Maxwell's case within days, or it could punt her petition down the line and make a decision at a future conference. If the justices take the case, they will likely set a schedule for Maxwell and the government to submit written arguments and schedule a day to hear both sides make oral arguments in court. An actual decision probably wouldn't come for several months. If the justices don't take the case, Maxwell can pursue a new appeal. David Oscar Markus, a lawyer for Maxwell, has previously saidplans for a separate appeal are in the works. Because Maxwell was convicted in a federal case,President Donald Trumphas the power to pardon her. Markus has said that he hopes Trump willexercise that power "in the right and just way,"and that his client would be happy to testify before Congressif Trump gives her clemency first. Trump noted he has that power during questioning July 28 by reporters in Scotland butadded it would be "inappropriate" to discuss it. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY:Supreme Court to weigh Ghislaine Maxwell appeal in Epstein-linked case
