On the deadline to turn over discovery in the “Broadview Six” case, the controversial No. 3 attorney in the U.S. Justice Department instead filed a defiant brief declaring the government “has not agreed to cooperate” with any investigation into wrongdoing and asking U.S. District Judge April Perry to provide justification for it.
The 12-page filing signed by Associate Attorney General Stanley E. Woodward marked yet another dramatic twist in the long-running legal drama of the Broadview Six, 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’s insertion into what was already a hot-button case could raise the temperature to a boil. Earlier Friday, he was in federal court in Washington, D.C., where he sparred for hours with another judge, in a case involving President Donald Trump’s plans to renovate a golf course. The judge in that case has opened a formal investigation into whether Woodward and other administration attorneys misrepresented the president’s plans to the court.
Woodward, who previously served as senior counsel to the president, is also leading the Justice Department’s legal strategy in the midterm elections, which includes an unprecedented lawsuit seeking to halt certification in Alaska if the Republican incumbent loses the Senate race.
In Chicago, Perry had ordered the U.S. attorney’s office to turn over her discovery requests by Friday, including written communications with anyone outside the office regarding “investigatory or charging decisions” as well as an email sent to U.S. Attorney Andrew Boutros attaching an expedited transcript of grand jury proceedings.
Instead, the two assistant U.S. attorneys who had been handling the case for Boutros’ office since the summer, Nathaniel Whalen and Diane MacArthur, both filed motions earlier Friday seeking to withdraw.
In his brief filed hours later, Woodward indicated that nothing Perry requested had been turned over because the Justice Department did not construe her minute order “as a directive creating any obligation to produce any information” because it used terms like “ask” and “request.”
“If the Court intended for its October 9 minute entry to serve as a directive, the Court should enter an amended order and the United States will respond accordingly at the appropriate time, although for the reasons articulated below, the United States believes further proceedings would not be appropriate,” the motion stated.
The filing also accused Perry of making “vague but serious threats” about potential sanctions — including the loss of law licenses by those who committed misconduct — without stating specifically what the factual basis was for her investigation.
“Accordingly, the United States respectfully requests concrete notice of what alleged misconduct is being investigated,” the motion stated.
Woodward also argued that Perry cannot legally appoint special counsel to investigate possible contempt charges unless that person falls under the control of the attorney general.
Perry has made no finding at this point that there was intentional misconduct in the Broadview case. But at the most recent hearing Oct. 1, 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.
The judge’s discovery requests focused on whether prosecutors were being truthful with the court when they said there were no communications with anyone in the U.S. Justice Department that influenced the decision to charge the case.
More Top Picks Steelseries Apex Pro
Attorneys for the Broadview Six have said they believe the decision to indict the group of local Democratic activists for allegedly impeding an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent’s vehicle during a Sept. 26, 2025, protest was politically motivated amid pressure from Trump’s administration to make an example of them.
Boutros, who was first appointed in March 2025 by then-U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, has publicly denied bringing any cases for political reasons.
Perry also 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 — which ended in a rare “no bill” vote refusing to return an indictment — 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 judge also said her inquiry would not be focused on any misconduct before the grand jury, which is no longer on the table because the charges have been dismissed. “My sole focus at this point is on the lack of candor, concealment of material facts or other misconduct that occurred before me,” Perry said.