Weill Cornell Medicine has reached a settlement with Manhattan federal prosecutors to resolve a criminal investigation into allegations that the institution failed for years to prevent a physician’s sexual abuse of patients. The matter, handled by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, is notable not only because of the underlying misconduct allegations, but because prosecutors trained their focus on the institution’s response — or lack of response — to warning signs and complaints.

That distinction matters.

The U.S. Department of Justice has told New Mexico officials it cannot legally turn over unredacted Jeffrey Epstein-related files sought for a state investigation into conduct tied to Epstein’s former ranch in New Mexico. The request, made by state officials pursuing their own live probe, has now developed into a notable federal-state dispute over how far cooperation can go when court-imposed confidentiality protections and victim privacy concerns remain in force.

At the center of the clash is a familiar but difficult issue: when one sovereign is investigating possible criminal conduct, what limits apply to evidence gathered or held by another? DOJ’s position appears to be that existing legal constraints — including protective orders, privacy obligations to victims and witnesses, and restrictions on investigative materials — prevent disclosure of the files in the form New Mexico wants.