U.S. Attorney’s Office in Chicago Announces Reforms For Grand Jury Proceedings

In response to the highly publicized “Broadview Six” prosecution and the concerns regarding grand jury practices that emerged during those proceedings, on May 27, 2026, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois (USAO-NDIL) announced that it had implemented internal reforms concerning the Office’s practices and disclosures related to grand juries. According to U.S. Attorney Andrew Boutros, the reforms took effect on May 26, 2026, and apply to all grand jury presentations in the Northern District of Illinois. The reforms include:

• “clear and unequivocal expectations and rules for federal prosecutors related to grand jury disclosures and the timing of those disclosures,” and
• “increased and expanded education about grand jury presentations, including extensive, deep-dive training from national experts outside the Office.”

Aside from these general descriptions, however, the USAO-NDIL has not disclosed any details regarding the substance of the reforms implemented, and the contents of the new expectations and rules for prosecutors regarding grand jury disclosures and the timing of those disclosures remain unknown.

In a rare peek behind the veil of secrecy typically drawn over grand jury practices, the USAO-NDIL stated that the reforms should “put to rest once and for all the divergent practices that have existed across the Office for decades.” What those divergent practices were (or are) remain undisclosed, and the USAO-NDIL’s admission that there was such divergence over decades may be featured in future requests for relief from criminal defendants related to alleged grand jury misconduct. The Office’s press release also expressed optimism about the effects of the reforms, predicting that they “should all but eliminate points of contention between federal prosecutors and defense counsel as it relates to these grand jury issues.” Whether the defense bar will agree with this assessment remains to be seen.

As noted, the announcement follows significant developments in the “Broadview Six” case stemming from a September 26, 2025 protest outside a federal immigration facility in a Chicago suburb. On May 21, U.S. District Judge April Perry, who presided over the case, stated that she had “never seen the types of prosecutorial behavior before a grand jury.” According to Judge Perry, the transcripts showed, among other things, a prosecutor “putting her personal credibility and trustworthiness on the line in support of the charges,” as well as engaging in substantive communications with grand jurors outside the grand jury room, and excusing grand jurors who disagreed with the government’s case from deliberations. Following Judge Perry’s statements, U.S. Attorney Boutros personally appeared before the court and moved to dismiss all remaining charges in the case with prejudice.

Notably, the USAO-NDIL’s announcement also follows a recent revision to the Local Criminal Rules in the Northern District of Illinois that became effective May 4, 2026. Under the revised rule, when a complaint or information is pending against a defendant and fewer than 12 grand jurors concur in the indictment, the fact of their non-concurrence must be publicly filed on the docket of the underlying complaint or information. Prior to enactment of this rule, if the government unsuccessfully sought an indictment in such a case, it could have made a second attempt with a different grand jury, downgraded the charges to misdemeanors not requiring an indictment, or simply dismissed the case, without disclosing that any grand jury declined to issue an indictment. The amendment provides criminal defendants increased awareness of developments in the grand jury and may reflect a growing view on the part of the judiciary that additional transparency in grand jury proceedings is required to protect defendants’ rights. The USAO-NDIL’s acknowledgment of “divergent practices” over several decades may reinforce that view.

The USAO-NDIL’s press release also describes certain steps taken to determine whether similar issues may have affected other matters handled by the Office. Specifically, the Office stated that it:

• “proactively initiated an immediate review of other grand jury presentations that could have been impacted in a similar fashion,”
• conducted an ongoing “root cause analysis into the Office’s practices and procedures generally, as well as an exam of any cases by the AUSAs who went into the grand jury in that case that could have been impacted by similar conduct,” and
• “proactively reached out to the defendants’ attorneys in other cases handled by those AUSAs and has agreed to give them the ‘minutes’ from the grand jury sessions in those cases.”

Although the reforms announced by the USAO-NDIL are internal measures that may not create rights enforceable by criminal defendants, the circumstances surrounding their adoption may create potential leverage points for defense counsel practicing in the Northern District of Illinois and elsewhere. For instance, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e)(3)(E) provides that a “court may authorize disclosure—at a time, in a manner, and subject to any other conditions that it directs—of a grand-jury matter . . . at the request of a defendant who shows that a ground may exist to dismiss the indictment because of a matter that occurred before the grand jury.” Where supported by the facts, defense counsel may argue that courts should not simply presume regularity in grand jury proceedings and that these recent events demonstrate an institutional risk warranting greater access to grand jury materials or, at a minimum, for in camera review of grand jury transcripts.

This post is as of the posting date stated above. Sidley Austin LLP assumes no duty to update this post or post about any subsequent developments having a bearing on this post.