DOJ claims 'Broadview Six' communications are off-limits in judge's inquiry

Jason Meisner, Chicago Tribune on Nov 9, 2026

By clicking submit, I authorize Arcamax and its affiliates to: (1) use, sell, and share my information for marketing purposes, including cross-context behavioral advertising, as described in our Privacy Policy , (2) add to information that I provide with other information like interests inferred from web page views, or data lawfully obtained from data brokers, such as past purchase or location data, or publicly available data, (3) contact me or enable others to contact me by email or other means with offers for different types of goods and services, and (4) retain my information while I am engaging with marketing messages that I receive and for a reasonable amount of time thereafter. I understand I can opt out at any time through an email that I receive, or by clicking here

CHICAGO — A top Justice Department official told a federal judge in Chicago on Monday that communications with local prosecutors about the controversial “Broadview Six” case are privileged and off-limits to her ongoing inquiry into alleged misconduct.

U.S. District Judge April Perry had set a deadline of 2 p.m. Monday for the U.S. Department of Justice to turn over records about the case, including any emails or other written communications regarding “investigatory or charging decisions,” as well as a complete listing of any oral discussions about the indictment, when they occurred and who participated.

In a memo filed more than an hour after the deadline, Associate Attorney General Stanley E. Woodward wrote that the information Perry requested is protected by various privileges, including deliberative process and attorney work product, that precludes the government from having to produce them.

In doing so, Woodward, the No. 3 person in the Justice Department, referred to a 2005 decision by the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that held federal judges “may not insist that prosecutors reveal deliberative or pre-decisional materials.”

“The necessary implication is that ordinary privilege rules apply in this context,” Woodward argued. “A contrary result where privileges suddenly disappear whenever a judge decides to conduct an inquiry — would seriously undermine the separation of powers.”

Woodward said the deliberative process privilege covered all communications about the charging decisions in the case, including the strength of the evidence, whether the indictment should be sealed, the strategy for making the charges public, and the timing of any arrests.

The DOJ did turn over one specific item that Perry requested: an Oct. 14, 2025, email sent to U.S. Attorney Andrew Boutros that attached an expedited transcript of the grand jury session in the Broadview case five days earlier. That session ended in a rare “no bill” vote by the grand jury declining to return the indictment.

Perry wants to drill down on Boutros’ insistence in court that he knew nothing of the alleged misconduct before the grand jury in the Oct. 9, 2025, session until shortly before the case fell apart in May.

The now-retired assistant U.S. attorney who prosecuted the case, Sheri Mecklenburg, has said Boutros personally requested the transcript. In a court filing in August, however, Boutros, who was emailed the transcript on Oct. 14, said he was “quite certain” he never read it.

In her order, Perry requested not only the email to Boutros but any “replies to or forwards of that email” and metadata that could show whether they were opened. The DOJ said in its filing Monday it was “producing records responsive to that request.”

The claims of privilege by Woodward, though expected, brought fresh drama in the long-running Broadview Six case, which stemmed from the charging of six protesters during Operation Midway Blitz a year ago.

The case collapsed in May amid allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, and Perry has since begun an inquiry that could lead to sanctions or even appointment of special counsel to investigate criminal contempt charges.

Woodward has argued that Perry cannot legally appoint special counsel to investigate possible contempt charges unless that person falls under the control of the attorney general.

While Perry has made no finding at this point that there was intentional misconduct in the case, she said it was clear that “several aspects of this prosecution were very flawed” and that certain representations made to her by Boutros’ office were not accurate. She also said whether a cover-up occurred to hide illegal conduct — or maybe simply something that was “embarrassing” — does not matter.

Last week, Perry ordered Boutros and several underlings to testify under oath in her courtroom Nov. 16, though it’s possible the Department of Justice will intervene to try to stop it.

Two others who have been ordered to take the witness stand, Assistant U.S. Attorneys William Hogan and Matthew Skiba, have since broken from their office and intervened individually in the case.

_____