WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge who was nominated by Donald Trump says it would be “beyond frustrating and disappointing” if the president-elect hands out mass pardons to rioters who stormed the U.S. Capitol after the 2020 election, a rare instance of judicial commentary on a politically divisive subject.

U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, who was appointed to the bench in June 2019, expressed his criticism during a hearing Tuesday at which he agreed to postpone a Capitol riot defendant’s trial until after Trump returns to the White House in January.

During his campaign for a second term as president, Trump repeatedly referred to Jan. 6 rioters as “hostages” and “patriots” and said he “absolutely” would pardon rioters who assaulted police “if they’re innocent.” Trump has suggested he would consider pardoning former Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio, who was sentenced to 22 years in prison after a jury convicted him of orchestrating a violent plot to keep Trump in power after the 2020 election.

“Blanket pardons for all January 6 defendants or anything close would be beyond frustrating and disappointing, but that’s not my call,” Nichols said, according to a transcript. “And the possibility of some pardons, at least, is a very real thing.”

Nichols is one of over 20 judges who have presided over more than 1,500 cases against people charged in a mob’s attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Many Capitol riot defendants have asked for post-election delays in their cases, but judges largely have denied their requests and forged ahead with sentencings, guilty pleas and other hearings.

Steve Baker, a writer for a conservative media outlet, pleaded guilty last Tuesday to Capitol riot-related misdemeanors after U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper refused to pause the case until after Trump takes office. However, Cooper acknowledged that the case may never reach the punishment stage given the possibility of pardons.

Nichols commented on pardons during a hearing for Jacob Lang, a Capitol riot defendant who is jailed while awaiting a trial in Washington. Within hours of Trump’s victory this month, Lang posted on social media that he and other Jan. 6 “political prisoners” were “finally coming home.”

“There will be no bitterness in my heart as I walk out of these doors in 75 days on inauguration day,” wrote Lang, who was charged several days after the riot with repeatedly attacking police officers.

Nichols, who clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas before working for the Justice Department, said he hasn’t delayed any trial solely on the basis of possible pardons. He noted that his decision to delay Lang’s trial was based in part on matters that they privately discussed under seal.

“I agree very much with the government that there are costs to not proceeding here, both to the trial team, to the witnesses and to the victims, as well as to the public, which has an interest in a determination of guilt or innocence in a case that has been pending as long as this one,” Nichols said.

Several days after the election, U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras postponed a Jan. 6 trial that had been scheduled to start on Dec. 2. The defendant, William Pope, argued that his trial would be a waste of the court’s time and resources “because there will never be a sentencing, and I will be free.”

Contreras said he didn’t want to bring in dozens of prospective jurors for a two-week trial “just to have it go for naught.”

“Of course, it’s speculative, but there is a real possibility of that happening,” the judge added, according to a transcript.

A prosecutor objected to the delay, saying that “the speculative nature of what Mr. Pope hopes will be a pardon is not a sufficient reason to continue this trial.”

Judges have largely echoed that argument. U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton refused to delay a Nov. 8 sentencing hearing for Anna Lichnowski, a Florida woman who believes she would be a good candidate for a pardon. Walton, who sentenced Lichnowski to 45 days in jail, wrote that the possibility of pardons is “irrelevant to the Court’s obligation to carry out the legal responsibilities of the Judicial Branch.”