U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro filed a motion Monday asking a federal judge to wipe his earlier decision quashing two grand jury subpoenas tied to a criminal investigation into Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, even as the Justice Department made clear it still disagrees with the ruling.
The move, reported by The Hill, came after Pirro's office closed the underlying probe late last month and handed the investigation over to the Fed's inspector general. In the filing, the DOJ argued the matter is now "moot" because the investigation has ended and no meaningful relief can come from an appeal.
But the filing's language left no ambiguity about where prosecutors stand on the merits. The government stated plainly that it "does not agree with this Court's decision to quash the subpoenas." It simply concluded that the closure of the investigation made further litigation pointless, for now.
The motion landed on the desk of U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, the Obama appointee who quashed the subpoenas and who now must decide whether to vacate his own rulings. The filing laid out the legal reasoning in blunt terms:
"However, even in the event of a successful appeal to the D.C. Circuit, the United States cannot obtain meaningful relief because the investigation has closed."
Prosecutors cited standard mootness doctrine, noting that when "an event occurs while a case is pending on appeal that makes it impossible for the court to grant any effectual relief," the appeal must be dismissed.
That sounds like a retreat. It isn't, not entirely. The filing also made clear the door remains open for future action. Should the U.S. Attorney open a new grand jury investigation, "the issuance of any future subpoenas would be based on a different record, one that would presumably include any information generated by the Inspector General's analysis." And if the Federal Reserve objected to a hypothetical future subpoena, "legal recourse would remain available."
In other words: the DOJ closed one chapter but left itself room to start another.
Judge Boasberg's original decision to quash the subpoenas was itself a sharp rebuke. Newsmax reported that Boasberg ruled in March that prosecutors had presented "essentially zero evidence" of a crime. He found the subpoenas unjustified and cited anti-Powell statements from President Trump and his aides as evidence of bias in the probe.
Pirro's office was investigating whether Powell made false statements to Congress or committed fraud connected to the Fed's $2.5 billion renovation project. Pirro herself defended the inquiry's legitimacy, pointing to the project's ballooning costs.
That ruling drew fierce criticism from the right. President Trump called for Judge Boasberg's removal after the decision, and the broader clash between the administration and Boasberg has played out across multiple high-profile cases.
Pirro initially said she planned to appeal. The Monday filing signals she will not.
The investigation did not simply go quiet after Boasberg's March ruling. Federal prosecutors made an unannounced visit to the Federal Reserve construction site, seeking to "check on progress", a move that prompted a sharp response from the Fed's own counsel.
Fed counsel Robert Hur accused prosecutors of trying to circumvent the court's limits. The Washington Examiner reported that Hur wrote to prosecutors directly:
"As you know, Chief Judge James Boasberg has concluded that your interest in the Federal Reserve's renovation project was pretextual. Should you wish to challenge that finding, the courts provide an avenue for you; it is not appropriate for you to try to circumvent it."
Pirro, for her part, stood by the investigation's focus on the renovation costs. "Any construction project that has cost overruns of almost 80% over the original construction budget deserves some serious review," she said.
Trump himself signaled he wanted the probe to continue, describing it as both a criminal inquiry and a broader review of "incompetence." The fact that Pirro ultimately closed the investigation and referred it to the inspector general, rather than pressing forward with an appeal, marks a notable shift in the legal posture, even if the political posture remains unchanged.
Less than a week before the DOJ filed Monday's motion, Powell told reporters he would remain on the Fed's board of governors after his chairmanship ends. He pledged to keep a "low profile" but said he would leave only once he was confident the criminal investigations into himself and the central bank were resolved.
Powell's separate term as a board member does not expire until January 31, 2028. If he stays, he would be the first former Fed chief to remain on the board of governors after the end of his chairmanship since Marriner Eccles in 1948. That is a long time to keep a "low profile" at an institution under active scrutiny.
The legal and political landscape around the Fed continues to shift. Trump has nominated former Fed board member Kevin Warsh to replace Powell as chair. Warsh is expected to be confirmed by the Senate before Powell's chairmanship term ends on May 15.
The transition raises its own questions. Powell sitting on the board while Warsh runs it, with an inspector general investigation still open, creates an arrangement without modern precedent. Courts have been at the center of high-profile legal disputes across the federal system this year, and the Fed subpoena fight fits squarely into a pattern of institutional friction between the executive branch and the judiciary.
If Boasberg grants the motion and vacates his own decision, the legal precedent set by his March ruling, that prosecutors lacked evidence and acted with political bias, would be erased from the record. That matters. A vacated ruling carries no weight in future litigation. If the inspector general's findings eventually prompt a new grand jury investigation, prosecutors would face a clean slate rather than a damaging prior ruling hanging over them.
The DOJ filing all but spelled this out. Future subpoenas, it said, "would be based on a different record", one shaped by whatever the inspector general uncovers.
For the administration, vacatur would remove a judicial rebuke without the cost and uncertainty of a full appeal. For Boasberg, granting the request means undoing his own work. The judge now faces a choice: let his ruling stand as a dead letter, or erase it entirely and hand prosecutors a cleaner path forward.
The broader pattern of legal battles between the Trump administration and the courts shows no sign of slowing. From immigration policy to financial oversight, the judiciary has become the primary arena where executive authority gets tested, and contested.
Several facts remain unclear. The specific contents of the two quashed subpoenas have not been publicly detailed. The scope of the inspector general's review has not been disclosed. And the timeline for any findings, or any decision about reopening a grand jury investigation, is unknown.
What is known: Pirro's office investigated a $2.5 billion renovation project with cost overruns approaching 80 percent. A federal judge said prosecutors had "essentially zero evidence" of a crime. Prosecutors disagreed, closed the probe anyway, and now want the ruling wiped clean. The investigation lives on, just in different hands.
Accountability for how public institutions spend billions of dollars should not depend on which judge draws the case. The inspector general now holds the ball. Whether anything comes of it will tell taxpayers whether the system still works, or whether the Fed's renovation budget is just another line item nobody is allowed to question.
An 80 percent cost overrun on a $2.5 billion project deserves more than a "low profile." It deserves answers.