Eighteen hours before he was due to appear in court, U.S. Attorney Andrew Boutros tried to assure a magistrate judge Wednesday he didn’t mean to violate one of her orders by touting sealed criminal charges at a press conference with top Justice Department officials last week.
Boutros explained himself in a 14-page document filed Wednesday afternoon. And even though U.S. Magistrate Judge Laura McNally had ordered him to appear in court Thursday morning, Boutros told the judge, “there is no need for a further hearing.”
McNally apparently disagreed. In an order entered a short time later, she told Boutros, “the motion is denied.”
Now, court watchers are waiting to see if Chicago’s embattled top federal prosecutor will appear in court Thursday morning. The hearing is set to take place in the chief judge’s courtroom on the 25th floor of the Dirksen Federal Courthouse, one of the largest courtrooms in the building.
It all comes seven weeks into a credibility crisis for Boutros that began with the May 21 collapse of the “Broadview Six” prosecution but has continued to spread, even to cases unrelated to the six Operation Midway Blitz protesters.
Boutros’ office raised eyebrows again Tuesday night when it formally acknowledged it would not fight a bid by members of the “Broadview Six” to have their attorneys’ fees paid.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Maxwell Lisy wrote in a court filing that the United States “does not concede that the United States has acted or done anything to warrant those fees.” Lisy also insisted no effort should be allowed to seek evidence of such wrongdoing.
Boutros dodged at least two other high-stakes hearings in recent weeks. U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman threatened to hold a hearing in June over allegations of prosecutor misconduct that surfaced in a case over which she presides. Boutros avoided it by permanently dropping charges against two defendants.
Boutros’ office also recently convinced U.S. Magistrate Judge Keri Holleb Hotaling to hold off on a sanctions hearing aimed at the feds after a video raised questions about the accuracy of a sworn affidavit in another case.
Boutros’ team argued that Holleb Hotaling had no authority to hold the hearing. The judge agreed to a “brief” delay and sought input from defense attorneys.
Now, McNally has called a hearing over “potential violations” of her order sealing criminal charges against alleged Tren de Aragua gang members. Boutros discussed the case July 1 during a press conference with Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and FBI Director Kash Patel.
McNally wrote on the court docket that prosecutors called her chambers at 10:05 a.m. the day of the press conference, seeking an order unsealing the criminal complaint, with certain redactions, claiming they “needed to obtain a ruling within the next 15 minutes.”
The judge did not agree to unseal the complaint until the next day.
Boutros wrote Wednesday that he acted in good faith and believed the press conference “complied with the letter and spirit of the sealing order” because it was for the purpose of “facilitating ‘the enforcement of criminal law.’”
McNally’s seal order did “not prohibit law enforcement personnel from disclosing” documents in the case “as necessary to facilitate the enforcement of criminal law,” he pointed out.
One purpose of the press conference was to “deter future crimes” by Tren de Aragua “by publicly demonstrating that federal law enforcement would prioritize the prosecution and punishment of violent offenses” they committed, Boutros argued.
“The U.S. Attorney reasonably believed that disclosure of the arrests and charges of [Tren de Aragua] members helped facilitate the government’s enforcement of criminal law both in and outside of this district,” he wrote.
Boutros is being closely watched as he navigates a scandal unlike any faced by his recent predecessors, though. A chorus of local Democratic elected officials has insisted on his resignation, and a resolution calling for him to step down is moving through the Chicago City Council.
Boutros’ office issued an unusual statement responding to that resolution Tuesday, suggesting an ulterior motive behind the criticism. It said his office would “not be bullied into dropping its public corruption matters or closing out its newly opened ones.”
“No one faces this level of coordinated opposition and performative theatrics unless they are viewed as representing an existential threat to a system that is largely corrupt and broken” the statement read.
It added, “when this sort of coordinated panic sets in, it means that our federal leaders are on to something big.”