Then-judicial nominee April Perry answers the Senate's questions in July 2024 (Sen. John Kennedy/YouTube). Right: U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois Andrew Boutros (DOJ).
A federal judge in Chicago quickly rejected the Trump administration's attempt to redact the name of a government attorney on a court filing, exposing new details about an internal investigation into "Broadview 6" prosecutors.
U.S. District Judge April Perry is the same jurist who was "incredibly shocked" to learn in May that "prosecutorial behavior" she had "never seen" before was redacted from "Broadview 6" grand jury transcripts.
The Joe Biden-appointed judge warned at the time of possible sanctions for prosecutorial misconduct and potential ethics violations, leading to an awkward back-and-forth with U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois Andrew Boutros in the courtroom.
That day, Boutros said he understood Perry was "quite upset" and stated his intent to dismiss remaining indictments against ex-congressional candidate Kat Abughazaleh, her campaign staffer Andre Martin, Oak Park village trustee Brian Straw, and 45th Ward Democratic Committeeperson Michael Rabbitt; cases against Catherine Sharp and Joselyn Walsh had already been dropped in March.
The former defendants were accused of participating in a felony conspiracy by allegedly impeding an immigration officer and scratching an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) vehicle during a September 2025 protest outside an ICE facility in Broadview.
Prosecutors dismissed the cases with prejudice, but the fallout has only deepened as Perry continues to seek evidence that may "aid [the court] in making findings of fact regarding potential sanctions or criminal contempt."
On Thursday, the government tried to redact the name of Suzanne Drouet, one of the government attorneys who submitted a motion to seal and who serves as deputy counsel at the DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR).
https://x.com/SeidelContent/status/2108518306760020323?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
Perry denied that motion on Friday, noting that the government "publicly disclosed — in both court filings and open court — the fact that there is an OPR investigation in this case involving the prosecutors who were in the grand jury[.]"
"There is a presumption that materials that underpin a judicial decision are open to public inspection unless they meet very specific criteria," the judge said. "No such criteria are present here."
The resulting unredacted document, however, revealed more about OPR's investigation — particularly a claimed "need" to conduct interviews of the prosecutors and share transcripts with their lawyers.
"OPR has a particular need to interview former Assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSA) Sheri Mecklenburg and AUSA Matthew Skiba concerning their conduct in the grand jury, and Ms. Mecklenburg and her counsel and AUSA Skiba's counsel need access to these unredacted transcripts and exhibits to effectively respond to OPR's inquiry," the court filing said. "Ms. Mecklenburg and AUSA Skiba, among others, are subjects of OPR's inquiry concerning allegations of prosecutorial misconduct arising in and following the Rabbitt grand jury presentations[.]"
Mecklenburg in late September made headlines by denying wrongdoing and saying she would retire instead of being "scapegoated."
"If I do not retire now, I cannot defend myself. You have forced me to choose between remaining silent while my professional reputation is destroyed and prematurely surrendering my cherished career," she said in a letter to Boutros.
In a separate order on Friday, Perry set an Oct. 30 deadline for the DOJ to produce for review in her chambers "all communications between September 26, 2025 and March 30, 2026 from, to, or with anyone outside of the Northern District of Illinois U.S. Attorney's Office (other than the local FBI investigators assigned to the case) regarding any investigatory or charging decisions for this case" and "the October 14, 2025 email sent to U.S. Attorney Boutros attaching the October 9, 2025 Grand Jury transcript and any replies to or forwards of that email."
"Any claims of privilege may be made in a privilege log accompanied by a legal memorandum explaining what privilege is claimed and how it applies in the context of a sanctions / contempt inquiry by the Court," the judge said.