A judge on Thursday ordered the Justice Department to either release unredacted versions of several files on the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein or explain why it can't do so, following a lawsuit accusing Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche of improperly redacting documents.

U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan gave the government until Thursday, July 2, to comply.

The documents in question include eight emails with either the sender or recipient blacked out, a draft indictment of Epstein with the names of potential co-conspirators obscured and a 2019 email that mentions several co-conspirators whose names were redacted. Sullivan also ordered the Justice Department to either release the interview notes behind several FBI documents summarizing unverified allegations against President Trump, or explain why it couldn't release them.

The government was also ordered to release a log listing every redaction it has made to the files it has published on Epstein, as required by law.

The court order follows months of controversy over the Justice Department's handling of the files, which were released in response to a federal law. Millions of records have been made public since December, including photos, emails and law enforcement documents from the federal investigations into the disgraced financier and his 2019 death in pretrial custody.

Lawmakers and Epstein survivors have raised questions about missing or heavily redacted records. The Justice Department has said only about half of the 6 million pages of documents it collected on Epstein would be released, and many of the released files are partially blacked out. The department has said the unreleased documents were either duplicates, unrelated to Epstein or protected by legal privilege.

One of the emails covered by Thursday's order — in which Epstein refers to a "torture video" — drew scrutiny earlier this year after Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna of California and GOP Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky questioned why the recipient was blacked out. Blanche later suggested on social media the recipient was Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem, former CEO of the Dubai-based logistics firm DP World. CBS News has previously reached out to Sulayem for comment.

The department has defended its efforts, arguing the redactions are necessary to protect personal information or victims' identities.

Thursday's court ruling was spurred by a lawsuit filed in April by independent journalist and legal commentator Katie Phang over the redactions, which she argues are a "brazen, shocking, and ongoing violation" of the federal law mandating the release of the Epstein files. She asked a judge to order the release of several unredacted files.

The Justice Department responded earlier this month by arguing Phang cannot sue to force the documents' release because the proper recourse is for her to file a Freedom Of Information Act request. Phang's lawyers on Wednesday pointed to denials of Epstein-related FOIA requests. The judge then directed the Justice Department to respond by 1 p.m. on Thursday, and after the department missed that deadline, he ordered it to release the documents Phang had requested.

In a 48-page opinion, Sullivan concluded that Phang had the right to sue over unreleased files and was likely to prevail. He also said FOIA "does not provide an adequate remedy."

The Justice Department requested earlier this month that Sullivan pause any order in Phang's favor for at least seven days to give the government time to decide whether to appeal. Sullivan denied that request on Thursday.

CBS News has reached out to the Justice Department for comment.

Phang's attorney, Brendan Ballou, told CBS News: "The government thought that it could ignore its own law and blow off a judge's order, all for the sake of protecting the very powerful and the very rich. It didn't work, and now the public will finally get transparency around Jeffrey Epstein and his network."