In a decisive move, a judge known for his critical stance toward the Department of Justice has dismissed grand jury subpoenas issued by Jeanine Pirro, asserting that the U.S. attorney failed to provide any substantial evidence implicating Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell in criminal activity. This decision came even after Pirro was given the opportunity to present her case in a private setting.

Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg began his ruling by highlighting that it is well-documented that former President Donald Trump has frequently criticized Powell, labeling him as one of the most incompetent figures in government and accusing him of having serious mental issues. Trump has also publicly expressed dissatisfaction with Powell’s timing on interest rate decisions, openly suggesting action should be taken against him.

In December, Trump threatened legal action against Powell, accusing him of “gross incompetence” in managing federal building renovations worth billions. Additionally, Trump attempted to dismiss Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, following a mortgage fraud referral from Bill Pulte, a Trump-appointed director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency.

By January, Powell publicly disclosed that Pirro’s office had served the Federal Reserve with grand jury subpoenas, which implied a potential criminal indictment relating to his testimony before the Senate Banking Committee in June of the previous year.

Powell clarified that his testimony involved discussions about a long-term project to renovate historic Federal Reserve office buildings. He characterized the issuance of subpoenas as an “unprecedented action” that should be viewed amid the broader context of ongoing threats and pressure from the administration.

In other developments, Trump demonstrated his influence by using social media to call for investigations and prosecutions of his adversaries, including New York Attorney General Letitia James and former FBI Director James Comey. In response, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi’s Department of Justice appeared to take steps to align with the president’s desires, removing obstacles and appointing a prosecutor willing to pursue these cases.

“That testimony concerned in part a multi-year project to renovate historic Federal Reserve office buildings,” Powell explained, adding that the “unprecedented action should be seen in the broader context of the administration’s threats and ongoing pressure.”

Elsewhere, Trump proved that if he posted online calling for the investigations and prosecutions of his rivals, New York Attorney General Letitia James and ex-FBI Director James Comey, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi’s DOJ would force out the resistance and appoint a prosecutor willing to try to make the president’s wishes come true.

Those prosecutions collapsed, however, and separate efforts to subpoena AG James’ office for investigating Trump were also quashed in recent weeks.

Boasberg saw much the same “pattern” unfolding here, also referencing Pirro’s failure to indict Sen. Mark Kelly and several other Democrats who told service members they can “refuse illegal orders.”

“Being perceived as the President’s adversary has become risky in recent years. In his second term, Trump has urged the Department of Justice to prosecute such people, and the Department’s prosecutors have listened. For instance, the President exhorted the Attorney General to prosecute James Comey, Adam Schiff, and Letitia James,” the judge said, according to the opinion he made public Friday. “Within weeks, prosecutors had indicted Comey and James and were investigating Schiff.”

“Consistent with this pattern, DOJ has now set its sights on Powell,” Boasberg added, ripping “asserted justifications for these subpoenas” as “mere pretexts.”

The judge’s proof of pretext was Pirro’s apparent unwillingness to show her hand at all, even in private, and to Boasberg alone.

“Of course, the Government might not want to tip its hand by showing its investigation’s target — i.e., Powell or the Board — what evidence it has already collected. Indeed, many prosecutors would understandably want to hold their cards close to the vest. Respecting this prerogative, the Court at the hearing invited the Government to submit any additional justifications for the subpoenas ex parte. In fact, in other recent cases in which subpoena targets have moved to quash, the Government has submitted ex parte the evidence that led it to suspect wrongdoing. In our case, however, the Government at the hearing declined to offer any other evidence,” the judge concluded. “The Court is thus left with no credible reason to think that the Government is investigating suspicious facts as opposed to targeting a disfavored official.”

Boasberg added some mockery of the evidence as a parting shot.

“Searching for any reason to suspect that Powell might have lied to Congress, the only one the Court can descry is that he testified at a hearing. The Government might as well investigate him for mail fraud because someone once saw him send a letter,” he quipped.

Pirro, for her part, promptly vowed to appeal and called Boasberg, a Barack Obama appointee, an “activist judge.”

“The American public is fed up with taxpayer money that goes into an unaccountable black hole,” the U.S. attorney said. “Today, an activist judge in Washington, D.C. has bathed Jerome Powell in immunity by taking the tool of a grand jury subpoena away from our ability to investigate the Federal Reserve. The Department of Justice will appeal.”

While Republican lawmakers have called for Boasberg’s impeachment and removal from office, the DOJ’s separate and simultaneous efforts to discipline him for ruling against the administration fell flat.