The implosion of a prosecution against anti-ICE protesters is the latest indication that US Attorney Andrew Boutros is prioritizing loyalty to Washington over the Northern District of Illinois’ longstanding nonpartisan customs, former federal prosecutors said.
That assessment — fueled further by reports that Boutros is investigating the financing behind E. Jean Carroll’s litigation against Donald Trump — contrasts with Boutros’ efforts to present himself as a traditional prosecutor, unswayed by politics and in a different mold than many of the present’s more outwardly loyal appointees.
More than a year into his tenure, Boutros’ actions show he’s working with one eye fixed on Washington, said eight former Chicago federal prosecutors, some of whom were granted anonymity to speak freely.
Others were hesitant to ascribe motive to Boutros but acknowledged the office is facing serious and perhaps unprecedented credibility questions.
The protester case and others stemming from the “Operation Midway Blitz” deportation push deviated so starkly from the office’s past practices, the only viable explanation is political motives, said Ron Safer, former Chicago federal prosecutor now in private practice.
Boutros, a former Chicago assistant US attorney and Big Law white-collar defense attorney, is “willing to have the office do the bidding of the president and the attorney general regardless of the interests of the people of the Northern District of Illinois,” Safer said.
Christopher Parente, who represents a protester in the case that recently collapsed, said he had been hopeful about Boutros. They were colleagues in the office years ago, Parente said, and Boutros is “one of the most intelligent people I’ve ever met.”
“Unfortunately, and this is consistent with people in Trump’s orbit, if you want to stay in that orbit you need to bend the knee to the man,” he said.
In response to questions, the US Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois Monday sent a six-page statement framed as a Q&A, with Bloomberg Law’s questions rephrased.
“Subject to normal and healthy interactions with superiors in Washington, D.C. as well as compliance with Department protocols and standing operating procedures, U.S. Attorney Boutros has operated with autonomy as U.S. Attorney, as U.S. Attorney Boutros has stated repeatedly in his public statements,” the statement said.
In the statement, the office stood by its handling of Midway Blitz cases, saying it pivoted its approach after a poor success rate in early weeks. Boutros and his office ultimately declined to prosecute in some 90% of related arrests after that initial period, according to the statement.
As for failures to indict in some cases, the statement said the office’s “grand jury practice was substantially strained” during the operation. “Looming large in many of those matters are clear instances of straight jury nullification” where jurors wouldn’t indict despite clear probable cause, it said.
Trump named Boutros interim US attorney last year, after which Northern District of Illinois judges approved him to keep the position.
Midway Blitz hit Chicago in September, and as it escalated, immigration agents were met with repeated protests. Then-Attorney General Pam Bondi directed Northern District of Illinois prosecutors to charge anyone interfering with federal operations “with the highest provable offense available under the law.”
Former prosecutors acknowledged that protecting law enforcement is important and that each administration is free to pursue its priorities. But prosecutors are still obliged to bring only strong, well-vetted cases, they said.
The collapse of Midway Blitz prosecutions has added to other troubles in Boutros’ office, including an exodus of experienced prosecutors. At least seven section chiefs have left since November, according to Bloomberg Law’s review of press releases, news reports, and social media accounts.
Judge April Perry, the former prosecutor overseeing the protester case, said from the bench that the office had broken her trust. Illinois’ US Sens. Dick Durbin (D) and Tammy Duckworth (D) called for Boutros’ resignation, as did Democratic congressional candidate Daniel Biss and Lt. Gov. Juliana Stratton (D), who’s running for the retiring Durbin’s seat.
Boutros’ office Monday warned against a rush to judgment in the protester case, saying it’s “important to all those involved, especially the career prosecutors, that they be given an opportunity to explain their side of the story and demonstrate that although mistakes may have been made, they acted in good faith.”
Boutros has repeatedly denied his office opened an investigation into Carroll. His statements leave open the possibility they could uncover evidence for referral to New York prosecutors to open a perjury probe into the Trump sexual assault accuser.
Case Collapse
The collapsed protester case was controversial from the start. The four defendants, all of whom have connections to local politics, were scheduled for trial on misdemeanor charges they impeded a federal agent.
After reading unredacted grand jury transcripts, though, Perry called attorneys into court and said prosecutors appeared to have engaged in serious improprieties at the grand jury and then redacted the proof of that conduct from the transcripts they’d originally given her.
Boutros appeared in court to personally dismiss the case but defended the decision to prosecute. He said he didn’t know about much of the conduct at the grand jury until late April, at which point he decided to drop felony conspiracy charges.
In the Monday statement, Boutros reiterated he had no knowledge of certain improprieties until late April, saying the case was just one of hundreds that he and his leadership team “were weighing in on daily.”
New grand jury procedures he’s ordered implement rules about disclosure of grand jury materials, Boutros said.
Boutros is good at “talking the talk” — presenting himself as a “disciplined, experienced, well-trained, fair prosecutor,” said Randall Samborn, a former Chicago assistant US attorney, but “there’s a record of actions and inactions that demonstrate the real record.”
“You can’t look at what’s occurred across the Justice Department and US attorney’s offices under this administration and not be suspicious of the motives and influence from the top down,” he said.