Jeanine Pirro has moved to undo the court rulings that blocked parts of her criminal probe into the Federal Reserve, signaling a shift away from the previously stated plan to appeal the subpoenas decision. The action reduces the immediate risk that Fed Chair Jerome Powell would be forced to hand over evidence, but it does not fully remove the legal uncertainty surrounding the investigation.
The filing came after U.S. District Chief Judge James Boasberg twice rejected Pirro’s effort to enforce subpoenas against the Fed. In March, he said her office had not shown enough evidence of wrongdoing to outweigh concerns that the probe was being used to pressure Powell, and he upheld that view in April.
What Pirro is asking the court to do
Pirro’s new motion asks Boasberg to vacate his earlier decisions, a legal step that would effectively wipe them from the record. Former Assistant U.S. Attorney Sean P. Murphy said such a motion is “essentially asking the judge to just pretend something never happened,” although he noted that the approach is harder to use when seeking to erase a Justice Department loss in a separate matter.
Pirro told CNBC that the office still intends to continue challenging the ruling, saying, “We continue to litigate Judge Boasberg’s illegal quashing of our subpoenas in order that it no longer stand and to prevent it from spawning any legal consequences.” The Fed declined to comment on the development.
Why the case remains sensitive
The investigation has focused on cost overruns tied to the Fed’s building renovations and Powell’s testimony to Congress. Boasberg said the record pointed strongly to political pressure, writing that “a mountain of evidence suggests that the government served these subpoenas on the board to pressure its chair into voting for lower interest rates or resigning.”
That finding matters because it tied the subpoenas to President Donald Trump’s long-running criticism of Powell over interest rates. It also raised questions about whether the investigation was driven by legitimate criminal concerns or by broader political tension around the central bank.
Powell still faces some uncertainty
Even with Pirro stepping back from a direct appeal for now, Powell is not necessarily free of legal risk. He has said he will remain on the Fed’s board indefinitely after his term as chair ends later this month, and he has indicated he wants clarity before considering the threat resolved.
Pirro has also said she could reopen the investigation if the evidence justifies it, and she is waiting for a report from Fed Inspector General Michael Horowitz on the renovation cost overruns. She has not promised to end the matter if Horowitz finds no criminal wrongdoing.
The timing of the move is also notable because the grand jury that issued the subpoenas has now expired, Pirro said in her filing. That means the current subpoena fight cannot move forward in its present form, even though Pirro signaled that a new investigation could still emerge.
Political pressure around the Fed fight
The dispute has spilled into the Senate, where Democrats led by Sen. Elizabeth Warren voted against advancing Kevin Warsh’s confirmation as Trump’s nominee to replace Powell. Warren argued that the nomination should not move forward while the Fed still faces legal pressure, saying, “This is not what it looks like to close a criminal case.”
Appeals in cases like this usually need approval from a senior Justice Department official because they can create legal precedent that may hurt the department later. It remains unclear whether Pirro ever secured that approval, and Boasberg has not yet ruled on her latest request to vacate his decisions.
Read more at: www.cnbc.com
