On April 22, 2026, at a press conference at the Department of Justice in Washington, DC, U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro announced charges related to an international auto theft ring.
Nathan Howard | Reuters
A federal judge in Washington on Thursday rejected a prosecutor’s request to erase the government’s legal loss records as it attempted to investigate former Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell.
In a scathing order filled with media quotes and links to YouTube clips, D.C. Circuit Chief Judge James E. Boasberg rejected a motion by U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro’s office to reverse an earlier ruling against Pirro.
The latest development ends a months-long legal battle in which Mr. Boasberg sought to halt some of Mr. Pirro’s investigations into the Fed. In March, Mr. Boasberg rescinded two subpoenas issued by Mr. Pirro, saying Mr. Pirro’s efforts were aimed at least in part to “harass and pressure Mr. Powell” on behalf of the president who wants to lower interest rates.
Mr. Pirro agreed in April to close the investigation into Mr. Powell under pressure from Republican Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina. Tillis overturned a Senate block on the confirmation of Kevin Warsh, President Trump’s nominee to replace Powell as Fed chairman. Warsh was confirmed in May and will begin chairing the Fed’s first rate-setting committee next week.
Mr. Powell resigned as Fed Chairman as required by law, but chose to maintain another seat on the Fed’s Board of Governors. Even after Mr. Pirro said he was discontinuing the investigation, he wanted to be sure that the legal threat to the Fed was indeed over.
Mr. Boasberg issued a scathing order Thursday, appearing sympathetic to Mr. Powell’s view that the legal threat to the Fed may not truly end with Mr. Pirro’s decision to halt the investigation. Pirro said he could reopen the investigation if he chose.
CNN host Jake Tapper told Pirro in an interview: “You seem to keep trying to find out more.” “Pirro essentially confirmed that interpretation,” Boasberg wrote.
Despite prosecutors’ efforts to confine arguments to the courtroom, Boasberg drew evidence of what Pirro and President Donald Trump said in the press. Boasberg’s order simply “used the president’s explicit statements as evidence that members of Congress understood what the president wanted,” he wrote.
Boasberg wrote that his legal basis was “shaken” in the wake of Pirro’s decision and that he initially promised to appeal, but now that the investigation is complete, he has switched to the “bizarre” strategy of seeking to reverse the previous ruling. Boasberg’s latest order denied the motion to vacate.
Boasberg’s original ruling found that while prosecutors should generally be allowed to issue grand jury subpoenas with minimal charges, evidence that those subpoenas could be part of a political harassment campaign raised the bar for allowing an investigation to proceed. Mr. Pirro’s motion to resign would revoke that judgment.
“If the government gets its way here, any losing party in court could choose to argue the issue, expunge the unfavorable judgment, and freeze the accumulation and refinement of precedent on which our legal system relies,” Boasberg wrote.
As a lower court judge, he noted that Boasberg’s decision does not necessarily create a precedent. However, his reasoning “still provides a public interest that other parties and judges may derive from it.”
The Fed declined to comment. A spokeswoman for Mr. Pirro did not immediately respond to questions about Mr. Boasberg’s order or whether he might continue to appeal.
