U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Ferris Pirro speaks during a press conference at the Department of Justice in Washington, DC, US, on August 12, 2025.
Annabelle Gordon | reuters
Federal prosecutors in Washington are facing a decision that will help determine whether Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell will be swiftly replaced or put on hold while politicians fight over his replacement.
If they move forward with a planned appeal against the recent adverse ruling, as U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro of the District of Columbia has insisted, they risk entangling the investigation in complex, unsettled law, say former federal prosecutors with experience in appellate law.
“Regardless of what procedural means they choose, the real road ahead is extremely difficult,” he said. Shawn P. MurphyA former assistant U.S. attorney who has argued against the judge who ruled against Pirro’s investigation of Powell and briefed the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Trump administration’s plan to quickly confirm former Fed official Kevin Warsh as Powell’s replacement is looking increasingly likely to be a casualty of that legal fight.
Powell said in January that the Fed had received a subpoena from Pirro’s office, which he described as a pretext to punish him for refusing to meet President Donald Trump’s demands to lower interest rates. Later legal proceedings revealed that the subpoenas were related to his testimony about cost overruns on Fed building renovations, cases which Trump has described as involving “criminality” without citing specific evidence.
The Feds’ lawyers asked D.C. District Court Chief Judge James Boasberg to quash the subpoena, which he did, saying that prosecutors had not shown meaningful evidence of any malicious intent by Powell or the Feds. On April 3, Boasberg rejected prosecutors’ request to reconsider the decision, leaving the investigation in limbo.
Meanwhile, Sen. Thom Tillis, a North Carolina Republican who is retiring in early 2027, has said he will block Wersch from moving forward until the Powell investigation is closed. Powell’s term as chair expires on May 15, but he is hopeful the Fed Board will allow him to stay on as interim chair until a nominee is confirmed. Powell can also continue in his separate position as a voting member of the board until January 2028.
“I have no intention of leaving the board until the investigation is completed thoroughly, transparently, and conclusively,” Powell told reporters on March 18.
Tillis and Senate Republicans are otherwise supportive of Warsh. So if Pirro’s investigation pans out, he could be confirmed soon and move toward cutting rates. If not, Powell could stay indefinitely.
These two related issues will come up next week. The Senate Banking Committee is set to hold a confirmation hearing for Warsh on April 16. The Trump administration is actually forcing 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 case, and it is unclear when she will do so.
It may be difficult to appeal
Said, appealing cannot be a simple matter Daniel RichmanLaw professor at Columbia University. He was chief appellate counsel in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York.
“The general idea is that appeals courts don’t like pre-trial litigation coming before them, and they’re really looking for some clear decision with real consequences,” Richman said.
Piros’ team recently said in court that it was still in the fact-finding phase.
According to the transcript, a prosecutor told Boasberg at the March 3 hearing, “We do not know at this time” whether there was any inappropriate conduct by Powell. Prosecutors rejected a motion by Boasberg to plead guilty “ex parte” or without the presence of the Fed’s legal team.
“The government’s fundamental problem is that it has presented no evidence of fraud,” Boasberg wrote.
These circumstances pose a legal challenge for Pirro because the Supreme Court typically rejects piecemeal appeals. It has not specifically ruled on the question of whether quashed criminal summonses can be appealed. And it has shown in other cases that it doesn’t want to encourage litigants to halt proceedings whenever a party wants to dispute a judge’s decision. Appeals courts generally review the entire legal proceeding at once, rather than evaluating each motion individually.
To move forward, Pirro will need to argue that Boasberg effectively ended his investigation by quashing the subpoena.
“Multiple federal courts of appeals have ruled that an order quashing a grand jury subpoena is an appealable order,” Pirro said in an interview Wednesday when asked about his appeal prospects.
No guarantee of victory in appeal
Even if the courts agree that Pirro is entitled to appeal, she still may not win. This may backfire on him. “Sometimes you don’t appeal issues even when you have a chance of winning, because sometimes you create bad case law for yourself,” Murphy said.
Murphy resigned as an assistant US attorney in the Appellate Division of the District of Puerto Rico in March 2025. he told npr At that time he did not want to be associated with the Justice Department.
That broader political context will remain a factor in future proceedings. Like Boasberg, other justices will question the government’s possible political motivations in pursuing the Fed investigation jeffrey belinProfessor of Law at Vanderbilt University. He was a law clerk at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and worked as a prosecutor in the office now run by Pirro.
“That’s why the DOJ has long sought to remain independent and non-partisan,” Belin said. “Once it loses the benefit of the doubt, it is difficult to regain that trust and that reduces the chances of success in various cases.”