After nearly 20 years with the U.S. Justice Department, career prosecutor Sheri Mecklenburg says she has been forced into retirement — and she is laying out her account in a sharply worded letter to Chicago U.S. Attorney Andrew Boutros.

Chicago Sun-Times reporter Jon Seidel obtained the letter, in which Mecklenburg alleges that the U.S. attorney appointed by President Donald Trump instructed her to file felony charges against the group of officials and activists known as the "Broadview Six." She said she told him the case would be "better suited to misdemeanor charges." That divide — between a presidentially appointed U.S. attorney and a career prosecutor in a non-political post — runs through her account.

The six immigration rights activists and local political figures were targeted as part of the arrests surrounding the immigration raids in Chicago known as "Operation Midway Blitz." They have already called on the judge to appoint a special counsel to investigate the Justice Department for criminal contempt.

U.S. District Judge April Perry discovered apparent prosecutorial misconduct after a defense attorney suggested she review the unredacted grand jury transcripts. In the federal system, a grand jury is a panel of citizens that hears the government's evidence and votes on whether probable cause supports an indictment. According to those transcripts, 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 was dismissed by prosecutors; another who questioned the facts presented was asked to leave. The case was tried three times despite the grand jury shooting down the prosecution, the local NBC affiliate reported in June.

Retiring 'under protest'

Mecklenburg's three-page letter made clear that she is retiring "under protest," writing 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," she wrote to Boutros. "I choose the latter."

She alleged that Boutros 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 healthcare benefits "earned over decades of service," she said, adding: "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."

Accusations of a withheld record

Mecklenburg wrote that the office's acknowledgment of her conduct came too late and left out key context.

"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," she wrote. "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."

The Grand Jury Manual she referenced is the Justice Department's guidance for federal prosecutors on how to present cases to grand juries.

She further alleged that Boutros intentionally kept her attorneys "in the dark" and was responsible for redacting her comments from the grand jury transcript ultimately submitted to the judge. When the judge and defense learned that grand jury information had been edited by the U.S. Attorney's Office, it did not go over well.

Mecklenburg also said Boutros "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," the letter continues. "Had I been afforded that basic fairness at the outset, I believe matters would not have reached this point."

She closed by invoking Boutros's own words: "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 same as scapegoating, and accountability does not require silence in the face of demonstrably false accusations."

Seidel reported that defense attorneys for the former "Broadview Six" members will address the claim as the matter continues to be litigated before U.S. District Judge April Perry. On Thursday, the judge will hold a hearing on "potential consequences of the tainted prosecution of the six." Her account — placing the felony charging decision, and the redacted grand jury record, with the office's leadership rather than its career staff — frames the stakes heading into Thursday's hearing.