After nearly 20 years working for the U.S. Justice Department Sheri Mecklenburg said that she’s been forced to take a retirement and she’s telling all in a letter to Chicago U.S. Attorney Andrew Boutros.
Chicago Sun-Times reporter Jon Seidel obtained Mecklenburg’s letter alleging that it was President Donald Trump’s appointed U.S. attorney who instructed her to file felony charges against the group of officials and activists known as the “Broadview Six.” Instead, she explained, the case would be “better suited to misdemeanor charges.”
The group of six immigration rights activists and local political figures known as “The Broadview Six” have already called on the judge to appoint a special counsel to investigate the Justice Department for criminal contempt.
The six were targeted as part of the arrests around the immigration raids in Chicago known as “Operation Midway Blitz.” Judge Perry discovered apparent prosecutorial misconduct after the defense attorney suggested she review the unredacted transcripts of the grand jury.
Prosecutors browbeat the grand jury, lied and manipulated them to get the indictment they wanted. One grand juror called the case a “crock of s——” and the prosecutors dismissed them. Another who questioned the facts presented by the prosecutors was asked to leave. The case was tried three times, despite the grand jury shooting down the prosecution, the local NBC affiliate described in June.
Mecklenburg’s three-page letter made it clear that she was retiring “under protest.” She believes that she has become “a convenient target to be scapegoated and publicly vilified.”
“You have forced me to choose between remaining silent while my professional reputation is destroyed and prematurely surrendering my cherished career,” Mecklenburg told Boturos. “I choose the latter.”
She alleged that Boutros had laid “responsibility at my feet for a felony prosecution that you personally directed over my objection that the case was better suited to misdemeanor charges.”
Retirement allows her to keep her healthcare benefits, she said, which were “earned over decades of service.” She also threatened, “If you carry through on your threat to terminate me, I will lose those benefits. If I do not retire now, I cannot defend myself.”
The scathing letter continues, “The Office’s tardy acknowledgment in its response brief that I did nothing to warrant sanctions was incomplete and does not erase the incredible damage caused by your prior statements. Beyond omitting the key Grand Jury Manual provision, the Office’s brief withheld the fact that I repeatedly sought guidance from, kept informed, and followed the directions of the Front Office — including you — at every consequential stage. It is telling that neither you nor anyone preparing the Office’s response consulted with me or my attorneys about the relevant facts and defenses before filing it. The Office did not fully present the facts supporting my conduct. It now seeks to prevent me from presenting those facts myself.”
She further alleged that he intentionally kept her attorneys “in the dark” and that he was responsible for redacting her comments from the grand jury transcript that was ultimately submitted to the judge. When the judge and defense learned that the grand jury information had been edited by the U.S. Attorney’s Office, it didn’t go over well.
She said that he then “declined to notify me about the May 21, 2016, court hearing, which I had the indignity of learning about after-the-fact from the media. I would have expected the leadership of the Office to ensure that a career prosecutor whose conduct and reputation were about to be publicly condemned received notice and an opportunity to be heard. Had I been afforded that basic fairness at the outset, I believe matters would not have reached this point,” the letter continues.
Mecklenburg closed by saying in part, “You repeatedly described me as a ‘by-the-book’ prosecutor, including in an email dated December 21, 2025. That is what I have always tried to be. I do not contend that every word I used or everything I did before the grand jury was done perfectly, and I remain prepared to address legitimate scrutiny of my actions. But legitimate scrutiny is not the same as scapegoating, and accountability does not require silence in the face of demonstrably false accusations.”
Seidel reported that the defense attorneys for the former “Broadview Six” members will address the claim, as it continues to be litigated before U.S. District Judge April Perry.
On Thursday, the judge will hear a hearing over “potential consequences of the tainted prosecution of the six..”