Feds question 'Broadview 6' judge's authority as clash over top prosecutor's testimony inches closer

The Justice Department on Tuesday questioned the authority of a federal judge to hold a “mini-trial” over the wreckage of Chicago’s “Broadview Six” case, further signaling a likely challenge before the judge can put U.S. Attorney Andrew Boutros on the witness stand.

Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward also raised the possibility that Boutros and other federal prosecutors might invoke their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. It’s the second time in six weeks that a Justice Department official left that possibility on the table.

“The court has presented the United States Attorney and his subordinates with a Catch-22,” Woodward wrote in a five-page court filing Tuesday. “They can testify and risk prosecution, or they can assert their rights under the Fifth Amendment and risk antagonizing the court.”

Boutros is considered the Chicago area’s top federal law enforcement official, but he and others now face the possibility of sanctions or a criminal contempt finding in U.S. District Judge April Perry’s courtroom.

Perry has yet to make any such finding.

Woodward is the Justice Department’s third-highest ranking official. He’s yet to formally challenge Perry’s Nov. 2 order that Boutros testify, but he seemed to take a step in that direction Tuesday by asking Perry to clarify her authority for doing so.

The judge does not appear to be backing down, either. Rather, she complained on the court docket Tuesday that records turned over to her Monday by the Justice Department fell short of what she’d asked for a month ago.

Among other things, Perry wanted to see an Oct. 14, 2025, email Boutros received, in order to test his claim that he didn’t know about alleged misconduct by his team in the “Broadview Six” case. She asked not only for the email, but metadata, “including read receipts, delivery status, and message tracking logs.”

The Justice Department claimed to have turned responsive records over to Perry on Monday. But Tuesday, she complained that she’d received “two 1-page emails” in PDF format — with no metadata.

“The point of requesting the 10/14/2025 email and attachment was to provide corroboration for U.S. Attorney Boutros’ claim that he had not read them,” Perry wrote. “The government’s chosen manner of production thus sheds no light on the only relevant issue.”

Anthony Vazquez/Sun-Times

She gave them until Thursday afternoon to try again.

It all seemed to take Chicago’s Dirksen Federal Courthouse a step further into unprecedented territory. Perry clearly doesn’t believe what Boutros has told her about the disastrous “Broadview Six” case — but Woodward suggested there’s little she can do about it.

“No authority exists for a federal judge to hold a mini-trial dedicated to uncovering and assessing evidence with criminal sanctions on the table,” Woodward wrote.

Perry has said Boutros must testify Nov. 16, unless attorneys agree on another date for the hearing to happen by Nov. 24. She also ordered three rank-and-file prosecutors who worked the “Broadview Six” case to testify.

The case revolved around a protest outside an immigration holding facility in west suburban Broadview in September 2025. It occurred at the height of the Trump administration’s Operation Midway Blitz deportation campaign.

The case collapsed in May after Perry discovered alleged misconduct by Boutros’ staff while seeking an indictment from a grand jury. The initial controversy revolved around the conduct of a veteran rank-and-file prosecutor.

But Perry has turned her attention to the accuracy of two claims made by the feds last spring.

The judge asked Boutros’ office to turn over records by Oct. 30 that would help her test them. Instead, Woodward inserted himself into the case that day, in what appeared to be an effort to stymie Perry’s inquiry.

On Monday, he filed notice that he’d turned over records that were “responsive” to one such request — dealing with Boutros’ email.

The day the “Broadview Six” case fell apart, Boutros told Perry he only learned of certain misconduct by his team in late April. But later, he acknowledged he’d received a transcript by email on Oct. 14, 2025, documenting the misconduct at issue.

Boutros said he didn’t remember reading it. That’s why Perry wanted to see the metadata and read receipts — to test Boutros’ claim.

The second point at issue revolved around whether the White House played any role in the case.

Boutros’ team told Perry in March there were “no communications of any nature from, to, or with anyone outside [the U.S. attorney’s office] (other than the local FBI investigators assigned to the case) regarding any investigatory or charging decisions.

“To be crystal clear, this specifically includes anyone in the White House” or at Justice Department headquarters in Washington, prosecutors wrote.

Perry originally took the feds at their word that the communications don’t exist. But Boutros’ team has since suggested otherwise. So, mirroring the feds’ language, Perry on Oct. 9 asked them to turn over records of any such communication.

Rather than deny they exist, the Justice Department on Monday cited privilege — and declined.