The “Broadview Six” case, which involves six protesters charged during Operation Midway Blitz last year, has taken a new turn as Associate Attorney General Stanley E. Woodward filed a contentious brief opposing a judge’s discovery orders. The filing, submitted on the deadline for disclosure, asserts that the Justice Department has not consented to cooperate with an investigation into potential prosecutorial misconduct and challenges U.S. District Judge April Perry to clarify her authority for pursuing the inquiry.
The case originally collapsed in May amid allegations of prosecutorial wrongdoing, with Perry initiating a probe that could result in sanctions or the appointment of a special counsel to consider criminal contempt charges. Woodward’s involvement comes amid heightened tensions; earlier on the same day, he faced scrutiny in Washington, D.C., over another investigation alleging misrepresentations related to President Donald Trump’s golf course renovation plans.
In Chicago, Judge Perry had directed the U.S. attorney’s office to provide discovery materials by Friday, including communications related to decision-making and an email attaching a grand jury transcript sent to U.S. Attorney Andrew Boutros. Instead, the two assistant U.S. attorneys handling the case, Nathaniel Whalen and Diane MacArthur, filed motions to withdraw from the matter.
Woodward argued that Perry’s order was phrased as a request rather than a binding directive, and therefore the Department had no obligation to comply without an amended court order. The brief accused Perry of issuing unspecified threats of sanctions—such as disbarment—without providing details of alleged misconduct under investigation. Woodward also contended that any special counsel appointed must remain under the Attorney General’s control, a point Perry’s office disputes.
Judge Perry has not made any formal findings of intentional misconduct but has described key aspects of the prosecution as "very flawed" and found that certain representations from Boutros’ office were inaccurate. She emphasized that whether the impropriety was intended to conceal wrongdoing or merely embarrassing information does not affect the investigation’s legitimacy.
Central to the inquiry is whether prosecutors misled the court about internal communications influencing charging decisions. Attorneys for the Broadview Six argue the indictments—stemming from a September 2025 protest against Immigration and Customs Enforcement—were politically motivated amid pressure from the Trump administration to target local Democratic activists. Boutros, appointed in March 2025, denies political interference.
Perry has also focused on Boutros’ claims of ignorance regarding alleged misconduct before the grand jury’s October 2025 session, which resulted in a rare refusal to indict. Records show that Boutros was emailed a grand jury transcript days after the session but stated he “was quite certain” he never read it. Perry has requested all emails related to the transcript, including any replies and metadata indicating whether the messages were opened.
The judge has clarified that her investigation excludes grand jury proceedings, concentrating instead on possible concealment or untruthfulness before the court. “My sole focus at this point is on the lack of candor, concealment of material facts or other misconduct that occurred before me,” she stated at a recent hearing.
As the Justice Department resists compliance and key attorneys seek to withdraw, the case remains a focal point in ongoing debates about prosecutorial conduct and political influence within federal law enforcement.