Judge blocks subpoenas in Fed Chair Jerome Powell probe citing ‘essentially zero evidence’
President Donald Trump speaks alongside Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, as they tour the Federal Reserve’s $2.5 billion headquarters renovation project, July 24, 2025, in Washington. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — A top federal judge in Washington on Friday blocked Justice Department subpoenas to the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors after determining the government “produced essentially zero evidence” to support a criminal investigation of Fed Chair Jerome Powell, according to an unsealed court opinion.
“There is abundant evidence that the subpoenas’ dominant (if not sole) purpose is to harass and pressure Powell either to yield to the President or to resign and make way for a Fed Chair who will,” U.S. District Judge James Boasberg said in his opinion.
“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. On the other side of the scale, the Government has produced essentially zero evidence to suspect Chair Powell of a crime; indeed, its justifications are so thin and unsubstantiated that the Court can only conclude that they are pretextual,” the judge added.
Acting U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro blasted Boasberg as an activist judge and has pledged to appeal the ruling.
The Justice Department’s probe centered on Powell’s testimony to Congress last year about cost overruns in a multi-billion-dollar office renovation project.
Powell rebuked the investigation in a video message in January as a politically motivated effort to influence the Fed’s interest rate policy.
The Justice Department’s move was met with heavy criticism from the Hill especially from key Republicans who stressed the importance of the Fed’s independence.
Sen. Thom Tillis, a North Carolina Republican who sits on the Senate Banking Committee, warned Pirro’s office against attempting to appeal Boasberg’s ruling.
“This ruling confirms just how weak and frivolous the criminal investigation of Chairman Powell is and it is nothing more than a failed attack on Fed independence. We all know how this is going to end and the D.C. U.S. Attorney’s Office should save itself further embarrassment and move on,” Tillis said in an X post Friday.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court on Wednesday significantly expanded the ability of candidates for political office to challenge rules governing an election, rolling back lower court decisions that had said a candidate needed to show concrete harm in order to bring a suit.
The 7-2 decision handed a victory to Republicans in Illinois who are contesting a state policy of counting timely cast but late-arriving mail ballots up to two weeks after Election Day.
It also promises to increase litigation nationwide ahead of the midterm election.
“Candidates have a concrete and particularized interest in the rules that govern the counting of votes in their elections, regardless whether those rules harm their electoral prospects or increase the cost of their campaigns,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts in the court’s opinion.
Roberts concluded that candidates — by virtue of running for office alone — should have the ability to bring legal challenges over rules governing how campaigns are conducted and votes are cast and counted.
Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan concurred with the court’s judgment in the case but on different grounds, saying candidates should need to show a “pocketbook injury” or other “actual or imminent injury” before being allowed to sue.
In dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, accused the majority of breaking from settled law and “unnecessarily thrusting the judiciary into the political arena.”
“By carving out a bespoke rule for candidate-plaintiffs — granting them standing to challenge the rules that govern the counting of votes, simply and solely because they are candidates for office — the Court now complicates and destabilizes both our standing law and America’s electoral process,” Jackson wrote.
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani is joined by New York Governor Kathy Hochul at an event in Brooklyn to support more housing construction in New York City on February 10, 2026 in New York City. (Spencer Platt/Getty Images)
(GARDEN CITY, N.Y.) — Just over three months after he won New York City’s mayoral election, Zohran Mamdani is already at the center of another election — even though he’s not on the ballot.
With the New York governor’s race on the horizon, some voters and Republican officials who attended New York State’s Republican convention on Long Island on Monday mentioned Mamdani’s name immediately as they spoke about Gov. Kathy Hochul.
“Kathy Hochul is scrounging for votes and she latched onto Mamdani,” convention attendee Phil Orenstein, from Queens Village, told ABC News. “She endorsed him. He endorsed her in the governor’s race and you can see where that’s going. It’s going so far off the cliff.”
The most prominent Republican New York native, President Donald Trump, criticized Mamdani heavily prior to last November’s election.
Yet after the democratic socialist and former state assemblyman defeated former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Republican Curtis Sliwa in November, Trump appeared to change his perspective on Mamdani.
When Mamdani visited the White House after his victory, President Donald Trump congratulated the then-mayor-elect and said that he thought Mamdani “could do some things that are going to be really great.”
Trump’s praise of Mamdani has raised questions over how Republicans seeking to defeat Hochul this November will incorporate the new mayor into their messaging.
Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman, who became the likely Republican gubernatorial nominee after Rep. Elise Stefanik dropped out of the race in December, did not mention Mamdani by name in his opening remarks at the Republican convention in suburban Garden City on Monday.
However, Blakeman’s campaign previously issued a statement criticizing the “Hochul-Mamdani agenda” and posted on social media shortly before the convention began that “Zohran Mamdani and Kathy Hochul are pushing New York in the wrong direction.”
Hochul, who had been facing a primary challenge from Lieutenant Gov. Antonio Delgado until Delgado suspended his campaign on Tuesday, touted Mamdani’s endorsement last week.
“Mayor Mamdani understands that we need to build a New York that everyone can afford — I’m grateful for his partnership in finally bringing universal child care to New York, and I know that he’ll stand strong alongside me as we fight against Donald Trump’s attacks on this state,” the governor said in a statement.
Mamdani’s proposals have ranged from free fares on the country’s largest bus system to free child care for 2-year-olds in the city.
“His policies are completely backwards and we are not a socialist country. We are not a socialist state,” Broome County Republican Committee Chair Benji Federman told ABC News at the convention on Monday. “The vast majority of voters disagree with the policies that he has put forward across New York.”
Just under 45% of New York State’s population lives in New York City.
“You have so many people who are in the Senate and the Assembly from New York City [that] if something happens locally down here, they’re going to try to bring it statewide,” Mike Sigler, an upstate Republican county legislator who lives outside Ithaca, told ABC News.
Mamdani and Hochul have each expressed disagreements with each other on a number of issues, particularly regarding taxes.
“Those of us entrusted with the sacred oath of service must heed that call and work together to honor it. That requires not the absence of disagreement but the presence of trust,” Mamdani wrote in his endorsement of Hochul that was published by The Nation. “We must be able to disagree honestly while still delivering for the people we serve.”
On Tuesday, New York leaders gathered for a press conference in the city about housing and infrastructure. Hochul and Mamdani were standing side by side at the podium.
Becky Pepper Jackson competes in discus and shot put on the girls high school track and field team in her West Virginia hometown. (ABC News)
(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday will for the first time wade into the heated national debate over whether transgender girls should be allowed to participate in girls’ and women’s sports.
The justices will hear arguments in a pair of cases from Idaho and West Virginia, where federal courts have blocked state laws that would prohibit trans girls from participating on teams consistent with their gender identity.
The outcome of the cases will determine the fate of those laws and similar measures in 27 other states. There are an estimated 122,000 transgender American teens who participate in high school sports nationwide, according to the Williams Institute at UCLA Law School.
Lower courts have concluded separately that the bans discriminate “on the basis of sex” in violation of Title IX, the landmark civil rights law that has promoted equal opportunities for women and girls in athletics, and the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause.
The states are asking the justices to overturn those decisions and reinstate their laws, arguing that sex and gender identity are not synonymous when it comes to women’s athletics and that allowing transgender girls to compete against cisgender girls is unfair and unsafe.
“It really comes down to one simple question,” said West Virginia Attorney General John McCuskey in an interview with ABC News. “Is it legal and constitutional for states to delineate their athletic playing fields based on the immutable physical characteristics that people have that are associated with their sex that’s assigned at birth?”
Becky Pepper Jackson, a high school sophomore from Bridgeport, West Virginia, who competes in discus and shot put on the track and field team, brought the legal challenge to her state’s law in 2021. She is the only known openly trans athlete in West Virginia in any sport.
“Someone has to do it. Someone has to do this for all of us,” Becky, 15, told ABC News in an exclusive interview. “Otherwise these laws and bills are just going to stand.”
Transgender athletes make up just over 1% of the more than 8 million teenage student athletes nationwide, according to the Williams Institute.
Idaho college student Lindsay Hecox, a former track and cross-country runner who was barred from trying out for her school teams, sued over her state’s ban in 2020. Last year, she asked the court to drop her case because she no longer wished to compete in sports and didn’t want to be in the spotlight. However, Idaho fought to keep the case alive.
“Everyone has had the experience of being told, look, you can’t play. You have to sit on the bench, or you can’t make the team. And everyone knows how that feels,” said Sasha Jean Buchert, an attorney with Lambda Legal, an LGBTQ advocacy group involved with the cases.
“That’s what’s happening to transgender kids right now,” Buchert said. “And the scope of [these bans] is absolutely absurd.”
Becky, who has openly identified as a girl since third grade, said she has never undergone male puberty, thanks to puberty-blocking medication, and has no physiological advantage over her peers.
“She has testosterone from her adrenal glands just like every female out there, but that’s the only testosterone she has,” said her mother, Heather Jackson. “She’s actually not the biggest person on her team. There’s people taller than her; there’s people shorter than her. She’s just an average female teenager.”
As a young cross-country runner, Becky was consistently at the back of the pack. More recently, she earned a spot in the state championship for discus and shot put, where she placed third and eighth, respectively.
“I put in time over the summer and after practices just trying to improve my technique and get better,” she said.
Her performance at an eighth grade track meet in 2024 drew protests from other athletes who claimed she made them uncomfortable in the locker room and on the field.
“I just didn’t think it was right,” said Sabrina Shriver, 16, a former discus thrower who refused to compete against Becky at the meet and later quit the sport because of her participation in the league. “It was just, I don’t know, we all just felt uncomfortable and we’re just, we didn’t want any part of it.”
The competitive advantage boys and men have physically over girls and women has been well established in physically demanding sports by medical research and serves as a primary basis for distinctions between the sexes in athletics.
Studies have shown testosterone produced during male puberty does lead to more muscle mass, larger hearts and lungs, greater body height and longer limbs on average for boys and men, according to the American College of Sports Medicine.
Before puberty, however, “sex differences in athletic performance are minimal,” the group says research shows.
A key issue in the West Virginia case is a dispute over whether Becky, 15, possesses an advantage at all, given she has not undergone male puberty, takes estrogen supplements and does not produce high levels of testosterone.
“If [sports leagues] look at the medical records of individuals like the Olympic committee does, testing people — they test for performance enhancing medications or drugs that their athletes take — so if we can look at those levels, let’s look at her levels,” Heather Jackson said.
McCuskey says a testing regimen is just not practicable and that Becky can still compete, but on a boys team. “We have to be able to draw a line here,” he said.
“Becky is bigger and stronger and faster than the females that she’s competing against,” said the attorney general.
He has urged the Supreme Court to stay out of the debate, arguing in a court brief that West Virginia’s law “implicates ‘fierce scientific and policy debates’ that elected legislators are best able to resolve.”
The U.S. Olympic Committee, the NCAA and 29 states ban transgender girls and women from competing on teams consistent with their gender identity. The other 21 states do not have bans, including California and New York, which have laws explicitly allowing trans athletes to compete.
Last year, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority upheld a Tennessee law banning some gender-affirming medical treatments for transgender minors, rejecting claims that the law discriminated “on the basis of sex” and saying that states should have leeway to regulate health care in an area of scientific uncertainty.
In 2020, however, the Court concluded in a landmark decision that a Michigan transgender woman fired by her employer for being transgender was discriminated against “on the basis of sex” under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Justice Neil Gorsuch explained in his majority opinion that her termination was “for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex.”
Becky, Lindsay, and their attorneys with the American Civil Liberties Union and Lambda Legal say the same reasoning should be applied to sports bans.
“There’s been a number of setbacks that we’ve experienced over the last few years in the courts, but I do have a sense of optimism with this case in light of the fact that the legal issues at play here are some of the same issues at play five years ago,” said Buchert, the Lambda Legal attorney.
Notwithstanding the legal arguments, 69% of Americans say transgender girls should only be allowed to play on boys teams, according to a June 2025 Gallup survey.
The Trump administration also supports the exclusion of transgender athletes from sports teams. An executive order signed in February 2025 says “it is the policy of the United States to rescind all funds from educational programs that deprive women and girls of fair athletic opportunities.”
Becky says, while she understands public opinion, she is unable to “go against who I am.”
“I’ve been a girl forever,” she said, “and playing on the guys’ team is going backwards.”
