Pirro’s probe into the Fed’s Powell will be difficult to appeal

Federal prosecutors in Washington are facing a decision that will help decide whether to quickly replace Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell or stay on as politicians fight over his replacement.

Former federal prosecutors with experience in appellate law say they risk getting the investigation mired in complex and unsettled law if they pursue a planned appeal of a recent adverse ruling, as U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro for the District of Columbia has urged.

“Whatever procedural tool they choose, the actual road ahead is extremely steep,” he said. Sean P. MurphyA former assistant U.S. attorney who argued before the judge who ruled against Pirro’s investigation of Powell and briefed the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Trump administration’s plans to quickly confirm former Fed official Kevin Warsh as Powell’s replacement look increasingly likely to be a casualty of this legal battle.

In January, Powell said the Fed had received subpoenas from Pirro’s office, calling it an excuse to punish him for refusing to meet President Donald Trump’s demands to lower interest rates. Subsequent legal proceedings revealed that the subpoenas were related to cost overruns on Fed building renovations and his statements about them; These were issues that Trump said contained “crimes” without providing specific evidence.

The Fed’s lawyers asked D.C. District Court Chief Judge James Boasberg to quash the subpoenas; he did so, saying prosecutors had shown no meaningful evidence of any wrongdoing by Powell or the Fed. On April 3, Boasberg denied prosecutors’ request to reconsider the decision, leaving the investigation in limbo.

Meanwhile, Republican Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who is retiring in early 2027, said he would block Warsh from moving forward until the investigation into Powell is closed. Powell’s term as chairman ends May 15, but he expects the Fed’s board to allow him to remain interim chairman until a nominee is approved. Powell may also remain in his separate position as a board member until January 2028.

“I have no intention of leaving the board until the investigation is completed in a transparent and definitive manner,” Powell told reporters on March 18. he said.

Tillis and Senate Republicans support Warsh. Therefore, if Pirro’s investigation ends, his situation may be confirmed in a short time and the interest rate may be reduced. Otherwise, Powell could stay on indefinitely.

These two interconnected issues will be on the agenda next week. The Senate Banking Committee will hold a confirmation hearing for Warsh on April 16. The Trump administration is essentially pushing Tillis to prove his commitment to his principles. A spokesman for Tillis said Wednesday that his plans have not changed.

Pirro has not yet filed an appeal in the matter and it is unclear when he will do so.

Objecting may not be a simple matter, he said Daniel RichmanColumbia University law professor. He was chief appellate attorney in the U.S. attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York.

“The general idea is that appellate courts don’t like having cases come before them before trial, and they really want a very clear decision with real consequences,” Richman said.

Pirros’ team recently told the court that the incident was still in the information gathering phase.

“We don’t know at this time” whether there was any inappropriate behavior by Powell, a prosecutor told Boasberg at the March 3 hearing, according to the transcript. Prosecutors rejected Boasberg’s offer to raise his suspicions “unilaterally” or without the presence of the Fed’s legal team.

“The government’s main problem is that it has failed to provide any evidence of fraud,” Boasberg wrote.

These circumstances pose a legal challenge for Pirro because the Supreme Court generally rejects piecemeal appeals. It did not specifically decide the question of whether a quashed criminal subpoena could be appealed. And in other cases, he has shown that he does not want to encourage litigants to halt proceedings when one party wants to challenge the judge’s decisions. Appellate courts generally review the entire legal process at once, rather than considering each claim individually.

To move forward, Pirro will have to argue that Boasberg effectively ended his investigation by quashing the subpoenas.

“Numerous federal appellate courts have held that a decision overturning a grand jury subpoena is an appealable decision,” Pirro said in an interview Wednesday when asked about the possibility of an appeal. he said.

Murphy resigned as an assistant U.S. attorney in the appellate division of the District of Puerto Rico in March 2025. he said NPR at that time he no longer wanted to be associated with the Department of Justice.

This broader political context will continue to be a factor in future proceedings. He said other judges, like Boasberg, would also question the government’s potential political motivations for pursuing the Fed investigation. Jeffrey BellinProfessor of law at Vanderbilt University. He was a law clerk for the D.C. Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals and worked as a prosecutor in the office Pirro now runs.

“This is one of the reasons why the Department of Justice has long wanted to be independent and non-partisan,” Bellin said. “Once you lose the benefit of the doubt, it is difficult to regain that trust, which reduces the chances of success in a variety of cases.”