U.S. Attorney Andrew Boutros’ office is in turmoil after the failed indictment of six protesters who opposed the Trump administration’s aggressive deportation campaign in the Chicago area.
The case was widely viewed as a political prosecution, and the revelations of prosecutorial misconduct that prompted its dismissal have created a credibility crisis in Boutros’ office unlike any faced by his recent predecessors.
More cases are now collapsing, judges want answers, and defense attorneys are calling for an investigation — and the possible prosecution — of Boutros, Chicago’s top federal law enforcement official.
Federal prosecutors in Chicago are better known for taking on violent street gangs, potential terrorists and corrupt politicians of all stripes. In 20 years, they put two governors in prison, as well as a former U.S. House speaker who served two heartbeats away from the presidency.
But the “Broadview Six” scandal is now threatening to do long-term damage to what’s perhaps the most highly regarded law enforcement agency in the city.
A federal judge summed it up this way: “Trust has been broken.”
The scandal revolves around a growing list of key players and obscure legal concepts. So here’s where things stand, one month after the “Broadview Six” case fell apart:
What happened in the ‘Broadview Six’ case?
Boutros’ office secured a grand jury indictment in October accusing the “Broadview Six” of a conspiracy to impede a federal agent. The case revolved around a protest outside an immigration holding facility in west suburban Broadview in September — at the height of Operation Midway Blitz, the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement campaign.
Prosecutors alleged that a crowd pushed and damaged the federal agent’s SUV. But from that crowd, only the six were charged. Most of them were involved in local Democratic politics.
The defendants were then-congressional candidate Kat Abughazaleh, Oak Park village trustee Brian Straw, then-Cook County Board candidate Catherine “Cat” Sharp, 45th Ward Democratic committeeperson Michael Rabbitt, musician Joselyn Walsh and Abughazaleh campaign worker Andre Martin.
U.S. District Judge April Perry, a former federal prosecutor, was assigned to the case.
Boutros’ office dropped charges against Walsh and Sharp in March. Prosecutors also announced plans to narrow the conspiracy charge in the case. The latter move raised suspicions of defense attorneys, who wanted Perry to help make sure grand jurors were properly instructed on the law.
Grand juries are generally made up of 16 to 23 people. They meet in secret and hear only from prosecutors and their witnesses before deciding whether to hand up indictments.
Prosecutors gave the judge redacted transcripts from the grand jury proceedings. Then, when Perry asked for unredacted copies, the feds announced plans to drop the grand jury indictment entirely, opting instead to take the four remaining defendants to trial on misdemeanors.
Perry initially concluded she no longer needed to read the grand jury transcripts. But defense attorneys kept asking her to take a look. She agreed to do so on May 18, speculating that the redactions were probably “IT issues.”
Two days later, she demanded that anyone from Boutros’ office involved in the redactions appear in her courtroom on May 21. Though the hearing initially took place under seal, a transcript was later made public.
The judge told the attorneys, “I was incredibly shocked.”
What did prosecutors do wrong?
Perry said the unredacted transcripts revealed three types of wrongdoing before the grand jury. The proceedings were led by longtime Assistant U.S. Attorney Sheri Mecklenburg.
The first category of wrongdoing is known as “vouching.” It’s considered improper, and it occurs when prosecutors put their personal credibility on the line to support criminal charges. Grand jurors are expected to hand up indictments based on evidence, not the goodwill of a prosecutor.
As an example, Mecklenburg told the grand jury, “I don’t charge people unless I’m absolutely sure.”
Second, grand jurors who disagreed with the feds’ case were excused from the deliberations, Perry said. The transcripts, which have now been made public, show Mecklenburg excused a grand juror who called the case a “crock of s—.”
Federal rules of criminal procedure only empower “the court” to excuse a grand juror. In Chicago, that would be U.S. District Chief Judge Virginia Kendall.
Finally, Mecklenburg acknowledged she’d had conversations with grand jurors outside the grand jury room, records show.
Perry also mentioned a fourth concern: The alleged misconduct had been redacted out of the transcripts initially given to her by the feds. She called that “the most problematic” issue of all.
Mecklenburg left the U.S. attorney’s office in February for a temporary detail with the Senate Judiciary Committee. The redacted transcripts were given to Perry two months later. Assistant U.S. Attorney William Hogan, another prosecutor on the case, took responsibility for the redactions. But questions remain about what role others played.
Perry told prosecutors she’d long believed in the “presumption of regularity.” It’s a legal principle that assumes federal officials are acting in good faith.
“That trust has been broken,” Perry told them.
That same day, she granted a motion from Boutros to permanently dismiss all remaining charges against the “Broadview Six.”
How has the scandal grown?
The revelations led Boutros’ office and others to begin looking into other Mecklenburg prosecutions. Allegations of similar misconduct quickly surfaced.
Mecklenburg’s most notable cases, aside from “Broadview Six,” include a pair of fraud prosecutions aimed at former Loretto Hospital chief financial officer Anosh Ahmed.
Ahmed is in custody in Serbia and fighting extradition to the United States. But two of his co-defendants quickly raised similar concerns about Mecklenburg. They pointed to the “Broadview Six” case and said their charges should be dropped, as well.
Boutros’ office did not immediately agree to it. But then, U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman threatened to hold a hearing over the burgeoning scandal. She hinted that the only way for Boutros to avoid it would be by permanently dropping charges against the pair.
His office did so a little more than 24 hours later.
Claims of misconduct by Mecklenburg then surfaced in a separate arson case. Now those charges have also been tossed.
In all, charges have been dropped against 10 people, in three cases, as a result of the scandal.
Who is U.S. Attorney Andrew Boutros?
Boutros is now facing calls to resign as he attempts to mitigate the damage.
He once served as a rank-and-file federal prosecutor in Chicago, handling financial crimes and special prosecutions between 2008 and 2015. He then moved on to become co-chair of Government Investigations and White Collar Practice at the firm Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP.
That was his job when then-Attorney General Pam Bondi appointed him in April 2025 to serve temporarily as the city’s top federal prosecutor. About four months later, Chicago’s federal judges chose Boutros to continue in the role on a more permanent basis.
As U.S. attorney, Boutros leads a team of about 120 assistant U.S. attorneys. He is considered the top federal law enforcement official in northern Illinois, and he’s denied that politics play any role in charging decisions by his office.
However, several veteran prosecutors left the office during the first year of his tenure, which also featured the Midway Blitz deportation campaign.
Boutros got the job even though he was not recommended to the White House by U.S. Rep. Darin LaHood, the Illinois Republican who led the search for Chicago’s U.S. attorney. Boutros also bypassed the traditional Senate confirmation process that’s been used to name his predecessors.
Several Democratic elected officials have called for Boutros’ resignation. It’s unclear whether he can be fired, though, based on the law surrounding judge-appointed prosecutors.
Boutros has said he serves at the pleasure of the president. But a legal expert told the Chicago Sun-Times the only way to force a judge-appointed U.S. attorney out of office is through Senate confirmation of a presidential nominee.
That hasn’t happened in Chicago since 2017.
What will happen next?
It’s unclear how far the damage from the “Broadview Six” case will spread. Judges and defense attorneys are reviewing grand jury transcripts in a growing list of cases, so it’s certainly possible more prosecutions will collapse.
Boutros announced “sweeping” grand jury reform plans, including a review of nearly 20 years of grand jury proceedings involving Mecklenburg. There’s likely little that can be done for fully resolved cases, though.
Boutros is facing the heat, too.
One judge said Boutros’ leadership team created a “credibility crisis.” U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin, the House Judiciary Committee’s top Democrat, has called on professional disciplinary organizations to investigate Boutros and others. And more than 100 former federal prosecutors who served in northern Illinois have called Boutros out for a “failure of leadership.”
Boutros’ office has apparently agreed to pay attorneys’ fees for the former defendants in the “Broadview Six” case, though it’s unclear what the price tag will be.
Still, those same defense attorneys are urging Perry to appoint a special counsel from outside the Justice Department to investigate Boutros and others for criminal contempt. Perry likely won’t rule on the motion until late July, at the earliest.
“Notwithstanding the government’s efforts to lay everything at the foot of a single convenient scapegoat, what occurred over the course of this deeply flawed prosecution clearly goes well beyond the mistake of any single assistant United States attorney,” the defense lawyers wrote, apparently referring to Mecklenburg.
Contributing: Sophie Sherry