Courtney Wild claimed in her lawsuit that federal prosecutors did not properly consult Epstein’s victims, such as herself before striking a secret plea deal, according to the Associated Press. The Supreme Court has decided not to move forward with the case, keeping previous rulings by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and an undisclosed lower court that the communications involved in the deal did not violate the Crime Victims Rights Act.

According to the U.S. Department of Justice, one of the rights that the Crime Victims’ Rights Act gives victims is “the right to be informed in a timely manner of any plea bargain or deferred prosecution agreement.”

In a statement provided to Newsweek, Wild expressed disappointment at the ruling while expressing optimism toward a reform bill for the Crime Victims Rights Act

“I am disappointed by this result,” she wrote. “I will never stop fighting for victims like me and I look forward to the day I get to testify before Congress to urge it to pass the Courtney Wild Crime Victims Rights Reform Act to ensure that another injustice like this can never happen again to anyone in this country.”

One of her attorneys, Paul Cassell, also spoke on the decision.

“While the Supreme Court isn’t going to review this particular case, the fight for victims’ rights now moves to Congress,” he said. “It can amend the Crime Victims Rights Act to make sure that a secret sweetheart plea deal like the one Epstein got is blocked.”

The circuit court of appeals ruled in 2020 that this section of the act was not violated because no federal charges were filed against Epstein at the time of the plea deal’s bargaining.

“Despite our sympathy for Ms. Wild and others like her, who suffered unspeakable horror at Epstein’s hands, only to be left in the dark—and, so it seems, affirmatively misled—by government lawyers, we find ourselves constrained to deny her petition,” wrote U.S. Circuit Judge Kevin Newsome in the opinion at the time. “It’s not a result we like, but it’s the result we think the law requires.”

Wild pushed back against this ruling, calling it impossible to understand.

“The government intentionally misled the victims but found a way to get away with it by working with a child molester to get around the law,” she wrote in an email obtained by the Associated Press. “And the Judges ruled in their favor. How?”

Due to this previous ruling and a failed attempt to have it retried in the 11th District Court, Wild and her attorneys decided to have the ruling overturned by the Supreme Court.

“Given that the underlying legal issue involves a practice that the Government intends to keep secret, this Court may well face a now-or-never opportunity consider the question presented,” Wild’s attorneys wrote at the time of the case’s Supreme Court filing, according to Politico.

“It was only due to unusual circumstances that Jeffrey Epstein’s NPA was revealed to the victims—and the public,” the filing continued. “In future cases, there is no guarantee that the Government will disclose its clandestine NPAs, much less disclose them in a way that would permit the kind of district and appellate court challenges that occurred here.”

This lawsuit was not the only one that Wild has been involved in. She and fellow accuser Haley Robson are also suing Miami Herald journalist Julie K. Brown for defamation after the latter reportedly misconstrued their roles in Epstein’s alleged abuses. Both women are seeking a public apology from Brown along with financial damages. Wild specifically claimed in that lawsuit that her abuse at the hands of Epstein was written as purposefully incorrect and that Brown downplayed her role in exposing the plea deal at the center of the Supreme Court’s recent ruling.

Update 2/22/2022 at 1:29 p.m. EST: This story has been updated with new statements from Courtney Wild and Paul Cassell.