U.S. District Judge April Perry scheduled the hearing for no later than Nov. 24, saying her "sole focus" is on "lack of candor, concealment of material facts, or other misconduct that occurred before me." The proceedings could lead to sanctions or criminal contempt charges against U.S. Attorney Andrew Boutros and his staff.

The case stems from a September 2025 protest outside an immigration holding facility in west suburban Broadview, where prosecutors alleged a crowd pushed and damaged a federal agent's SUV. Only six people were charged with conspiracy to impede the agent, and most were involved in local Democratic politics, raising questions about selective prosecution. The case collapsed after Perry discovered apparent misconduct by Boutros' staff during grand jury proceedings, including allegations that Assistant U.S. Attorney Sheri Mecklenburg spoke to grand jurors outside the grand jury room.

Perry has since expanded her inquiry to examine the accuracy of two claims made by the U.S. attorney's office last spring. The first was a March assurance that there were "no communications of any nature from, to, or with anyone outside" the office regarding charging decisions, "specifically includ[ing] anyone in the White House" or at Justice Department headquarters. That claim has been undermined by a lawsuit filed by former Chicago FBI boss Douglas DePodesta, who alleges Boutros met with then-Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, FBI Director Kash Patel and Assistant Attorney General Colin McDonald in DePodesta's office on Oct. 7, 2025—two days before prosecutors first sought an indictment—to discuss the Broadview Six investigation.

The second claim concerns Boutros' assertion that he learned of Mecklenburg's alleged wrongdoing in late April. He has since acknowledged receiving a transcript in October 2025 documenting some of the alleged misconduct but said he did not remember reading it. Perry noted that grand jurors initially rejected the case and that Boutros personally approved re-presenting it twice.

"The idea that [U.S. Attorney] Boutros would have made such a significant decision without reviewing the best evidence available to him about what went wrong in the grand jury is nearly unfathomable," Perry wrote.

Now, Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward—the Justice Department's third-highest ranking official—has inserted himself into the litigation. Woodward publicly entered the case on Oct. 30 and is expected to challenge Perry's authority and attempt to short-circuit her hearing. No such challenge has surfaced yet, and the Justice Department has declined to comment.

Woodward has developed a reputation for confrontation with federal judges. On the same day he entered the Broadview Six case, he clashed with U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes in Washington over a golf course renovation sought by President Donald Trump. At one point, Reyes told Woodward, "let's not play games anymore," according to a hearing transcript. When she pressed him on his refusal to interpret Trump's Truth Social messages, Woodward replied, "We're not on TV. I mean, I'm not a pundit opining about the president's words. As you've reminded me multiple times, I'm the No. 3 ranking official at the Department of Justice."

Woodward has also signed the settlement agreement establishing the controversial "anti-weaponization fund" for people claiming to be harmed by "lawfare," and his name appears on a Justice Department lawsuit over an Alaska Senate candidate with a name similar to Sen. Dan Sullivan's—a suit that has already been dismissed by a judge.

In his filing in the Broadview Six case, Woodward told Perry she should clarify whether a previous "request" for records was meant to be a "directive," but wrote that "for the avoidance of doubt, the United States has not agreed to provide any information." He added that "the United States believes further proceedings would not be appropriate."

Perry has ordered three rank-and-file prosecutors—William Hogan, Matthew Skiba and Andres Almendarez—to testify alongside Boutros. She also invited "any former or current employee of the U.S. attorney's office or federal law enforcement agency who has first-hand knowledge about the above events" to appear, a likely reference to DePodesta or Mecklenburg. In a Friday order, Perry said each witness will be asked about issues "of which they have personal knowledge," that she will ask follow-up questions, and that no cross-examination by other witnesses or their attorneys will be permitted.

The hearing, if it proceeds, would mark a rare public examination of internal Justice Department conduct in a case that has already drawn scrutiny over political interference. For Chicago-area residents, it raises questions about whether federal prosecutions were influenced by officials in Washington and whether the U.S. attorney's office operated with candor before the court.