Jon Seidel

@jonseidel

Federal Courts Reporter, @chicago.suntimes.com Signal: jseidel.37

139 Folgt15.999 Follower3.171 Posts

Bluesky

Ist das dein Profil?Übernimm es — dann gehört dir jonseidel.dirty.social.Profil übernehmen

Jon Seidel@jonseidel· 8h

JUST IN: Tommy Schaefer, accused of conspiring to kill Sheila von Wiese-Mack of Oak Park, is asking a judge to let him out of jail pending trial:

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR BOND/RELEASE FROM CUSTODY PENDING TRIAL, WITH CONDITIONS
Defendant, Tommy Schaefer, by and through his counsel MICHAEL E. BAKER, respectfully moves this Court for release from custody pending trial, and states as follows:
1. Following Mr. Schaefer’s completion of a lengthy period of incarceration overseas, Mr. Schaefer returned to the United States to face the charges in the present case.
2. Those charges are inchoate offenses. Mr. Schaefer is charged in a three-count indictment: Count One charges conspiracy to kill a person in a foreign country, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 956(a)(1); Count Two charges conspiracy to murder, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1117; and Count Three charges obstruction, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(1). Mr. Schaefer is not charged with a completed act of violence. The conspiracy counts charge an agreement, and the obstruction count charges concealment.
3. Under the Bail Reform Act, whether an offense charged is a “crime of violence” bears directly on the Court’s consideration of the nature and circumstances of the offense. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(1). A “crime of violence” is an offense that “has as an element ... the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another”; “any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a

substantial risk that physical force ... may be used in the course of committing the offense”; or a felony under chapters 77, 109A, 110, or 117. 18 U.S.C. § 3156(a)(4).
4. The inchoate conspiracy offenses with which Mr. Schaefer is charged are not crimes of violence. Conspiracy does not have as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force; its essence is the unlawful agreement. For that reason, the Supreme Court and the courts of appeals have recognized that a conspiracy to commit even a violent crime is not itself a crime of violence under the elements clause. See United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019).
5. Accordingly, in weighing the nature and circumstances of the offense under § 3142(g)(1), Mr. Schaefer should not be treated as though he were charged with a completed crime of violence. He is charged with inchoate offenses which weighs in favor of release on conditions.
6. Mr. Schaefer has been detained at the MCC, including in extremely difficult conditions.
7. Mr. Schaefer suffers from serious and ongoing health problems. He contracted COVID- 19 while incarcerated in Indonesia, and he has since been diagnosed with a post- infectious condition documented in his Bureau of Prisons (BOP) medical records as “Other post infection and related fatigue syndromes” (ICD-10 G93.39) a documented condition from which he continues to suffer.
8. Mr. Schaefer’s medical records reflect that, while his oxygen saturation is generally within normal limits at rest, he experiences significant oxygen desaturation upon exertion. On June 24, 2026, a BOP provider recorded that his resting oxygen saturation

was 96 percent, but that while running in place under pulse-oximetry monitoring it fell to 82 percent, returning to 96 percent only after he stopped and sat down. The provider assessed shortness of breath with activity. As a result, Mr. Schaefer’s own custodial providers ordered further cardiac evaluation including an echocardiogram and stress test and a cardiology consultation. The remain pending.
9. The conditions of Mr. Schaefer’s pretrial detention are not adequate to properly monitor, manage, or treat his condition, and his continued incarceration delays the very evaluation his providers have ordered. Release from custody, with conditions, would permit Mr. Schaefer to complete that workup and to obtain the medical care and monitoring his condition requires.
10. Mr. Schaefer’s compromised physical condition further diminishes any risk of flight, as his health substantially limits his ability to travel or to flee.
11. Mr. Schaefer poses no risk of flight, and does not present any danger to the community.
12. Mr. Schaefer does not possesses a passport and has no means to travel.
13. Further, any perceived risk of flight can be mitigated by electronic monitoring, home confinement, or other conditions of pre-trial release.
14. In addition, Mr. Schaefer’s counsel proposes that Mr. Schaefer live with a third-party custodian.
15. With respect to the issue of danger to the community, Mr. Schaefer poses none.

16. Apart from the events giving rise to the foreign conviction, Mr. Schaefer has no record of presenting any danger to anyone. He has no criminal history, apart from the foreign conviction which arises out of the same issues presented in this case.
17. Further, any concerns regarding Mr. Schaefer purportedly posing a danger to the community can be mitigated by the above-referenced conditions, i.e., electronic monitoring, home confinement, or other conditions of pre-trial release, and by way of a third-party custodian.
WHEREFORE, Mr. Schaefer, by and through his undersigned counsel, respectfully
requests the entry of an Order granting his pre-trial release from custody, with conditions set by this Court, and for such other and further relief as this Court deems appropriate.
Respectfully submitted,
By: s/Michael E. Baker
Attorney for Tommy Schaefer

Jon Seidel@jonseidel· 9d

The Broadview 6 incident also came up during a September meeting with Main Justice lawyers, but not the future defendants’ identities, the feds say:

14 To the extent counsel is suggesting any unique experience might entitle them to additional attorneys’
fees, the Supreme Court has rejected such claims in the highly analogous Equal Access to Justice Act
(“EAJA”) context. For example, the Supreme Court has stated that additional attorney’s fees are reserved
for situations in which an attorney has an “identifiable practice specialty such as patent law, or knowledge
of foreign law or language.” Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 571-72 (1988). The extraordinary
situations do not include things like “novelty and difficulty of issues . . . work and ability of counsel and
the results obtained.” Id. (quotations and punctuation removed). Nor is something like “undue litigiousness
by the government” a special factor since that would “usually . . . just increase the number of hours” an
opposing counsel had to work. Mathews-Sheets v. Astrue, 653 F.3d 560, 564 (7th Cir. 2011) overruled on
other grounds by Sprinkle v. Colvin, 777 F.3d 421, 423 (7th Cir. 2015) (distinguishing Jean v. Nelson, 863
F.2d 759, 776 (11th Cir. 1988)); see also Pollgreen v. Morris, 911 F.2d 527, 537-38 (11th Cir. 1990) (that
the “government litigated a position that lacked substantial justification is not a permissible special factor
because any litigation eligible for EAJA fees, by definition, involves the government’s pursuit of an
unjustified position”). Indeed, the Hyde Amendment analysis presumes the petitioners have already shown
eligibility—or, in this case, their eligibility for fees is not being contested—for the fees in the first place
under the governing standard. United States v. Aisenberg, 358 F.3d 1327, 1343-44 (11th Cir. 2004) (same
in Hyde Amendment context).
15 On July 15, 2026, counsel for one of the former Defendants sent an email to the U.S. Attorney’s Office
asking whether the Office “still stands” behind its assertion that there were “no communications” “with

anyone outside the USAO” regarding “who and what to charge” or its “investigatory or charging
decisions.” R. 110 at 3 (bold in original, italics added). The Front Office is not aware of any communications
in which it took direction from anyone outside the U.S. Attorney’s Office regarding its decisions as to what
investigatory steps the local prosecution team would take or who the local prosecution team would charge
when prosecutors went into the grand jury to indict this case. Out of an abundance of caution, the Office
notes there was a virtual meeting on September 27, 2025, among Main Justice lawyers, the Chicago U.S.
Attorney’s Office, lawyers from at least one other U.S. Attorney’s Office on the West Coast, and many
federal law enforcement agencies where the September 26 “Broadview” incident was mentioned (and a
public video played) as part of a broader discussion of incidents and conduct against ICE during that time.
To the Front Office’s knowledge, the virtual meeting did not mention the identity or political affiliation of
any person. It was only later when Chicago FBI agents assigned to the case began investigating the matter
that the Office learned the identity of some of the people involved in the incident. Moreover, as would be
expected in the normal course, there were discussions between the Office and Main Justice regarding such
things as case updates, especially given the publicity the case generated after it had been charged. These
privileged discussions are not only permitted but are contemplated. See supra 19; In re United States, 398
F.3d at 618 (“How the United States reaches its litigating positions, who said what to whom within the
prosecutor’s office, and so on, are for the Attorney General and the President to evaluate. The Judicial
Branch is limited to assessing counsel’s public deeds.”).

Jon Seidel@jonseidel· 9d

A few additional highlights from the feds’ Broadview 6 filing: U.S. Attorney Andrew Boutros was emailed a transcript of the 10/9 grand jury session in October but says he didn’t review it and problematic conduct was not brought to his attention until late April:

As to the other grand jury issues, the United States Attorney informed the Court that he first
learned of the “vouching” and ex parte conversations in late April 2026.9 Id. at 51-53. The United
States Attorney noted that he moved to dismiss the indictment based on his discovery of the
vouching and ex parte communications because “we wanted to moot whatever had taken place in
the grand jury.” Id. at 51-53, 57-58.
Since that time, the AUSAs on the trial team as well as Experienced AUSA 1 have self-
reported this Court’s comments—and the entirety of this matter—to the Department of Justice’s
Office of Professional Responsibility (“OPR”), which is the component of the Department
responsible for conducting an independent review of allegations of misconduct. 28 C.F.R. § 45.12;
Justice Manual § 1-4.200, et. seq. Moreover, as discussed in detail below, the United States
Attorney conducted a root cause analysis of the underlying issues giving rise to the dismissal of
the indictment and information in this case and has taken numerous remedial steps to help ensure
that the missteps that occurred here do not happen again.
9 The United States Attorney was emailed a copy of the transcript from the October 9, 2025, grand jury
presentation on October 14, 2025, but has no recollection of reviewing the transcript at that time, and is
quite certain he did not review the transcript at that time. The United States Attorney did not receive a copy
of the October 16 or October 23, 2025, transcripts until late April 2026, shortly before the Government
moved to dismiss the indictment. At that time (late April 2026), the United States Attorney reviewed
relevant portions of all three transcripts. Irrespective, no one ever brought the vouching or ex parte issues
to the United States Attorney’s attention until late April 2026, nor was the United States Attorney aware of
the vouching or ex parte issues until late April 2026.

Jon Seidel@jonseidel· 9d

New overnight: Chicago U.S. Attorney Andrew Boutros’ office says the “Broadview Six” prosecutors have self-reported the events of the tainted prosecution to the DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility as it argues against a special counsel. Full filing: cst.brightspotcdn.com/98/58/82c837...

CONCLUSION
This case involved irregularities during a time of immense pressure, upheaval, and emotion
in the District because of Operation Midway Blitz. Former Defendants have had all charges
dismissed and will recover attorneys’ fees under the Hyde Amendment. This Court has already
issued a public rebuke in this case that has garnered widespread attention. Koubriti, 305 F. Supp.
2d at 761 (“lecture from the court” may be enough to respond to a transgression). The AUSAs
involved have been under public and private scrutiny, including being subject to OPR’s
investigation into this matter. Moreover, robust root-cause changes have been implemented at the
United States Attorney’s Office. Those reforms are designed to prevent the very issues that arose
here. In addition, many hundreds, if not more than 1,000 grand jury minutes will be reviewed to determine that similar errors do not exist in other cases. Given all of this, the Government
respectfully requests that this Court reject former Defendants’ request to do more, specifically
opening up criminal contempt proceedings, ordering discovery, holding a hearing, or appointing
another attorney to investigate this matter. As such, the Government respectfully requests that the
Court deny former Defendants’ motions.
Respectfully submitted.
ANDREW S. BOUTROS
United States Attorney
By: s/ Andrew S. Boutros
ANDREW S. BOUTROS
United States Attorney
219 S. Dearborn St., Rm. 500

Jon Seidel@jonseidel· 16d

#BREAKING Former Illinois House Speaker Michael J. Madigan asks the U.S. Supreme Court to hear his case. Full petition here: cst.brightspotcdn.com/47/81/234a5e...

In the Supreme Court of the United States
MICHAEL J. MADIGAN,
PETITIONER,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
RESPONDENT.
ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

QUESTIONS PRESENTED
The government prosecuted Michael Madigan, former Speaker of the Illinois House of Representatives,
under the federal-program bribery statute, 18 U.S.C.
§ 666(a)(1)(B), on the theory that he corruptly promised
to help a utility company in connection with future, unidentified legislation in exchange for a “stream of benefits”
in the form of jobs for Madigan’s political associates. The
government also prosecuted Speaker Madigan under the
honest-services fraud statutes, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and
1346, on the theory that he separately promised to recommend a local politician to the governor-elect for a position
on a state board in exchange for the politician’s referring
potential clients to Madigan and his son. For both sets of
counts, the parties agreed to define the quid pro quo element by reference to the definition of “official act” in 18
U.S.C. § 201(a)(3).
The questions presented are:
1. Whether a public official acts “corruptly” under
§ 666(a)(1)(B) merely because he understands the
alleged bribe-giver’s intent to influence or reward
the official in connection with his official duties.
2. Whether future, unidentified legislation affecting
a company’s financial struggles is a sufficiently
specific “question or matter” under 18 U.S.C.
§ 201(a)(3).
3. Whether a legislator’s alleged promise to make a
job recommendation to a governor-elect constitutes an “official act” under 18 U.S.C. § 201(a)(3).

Jon Seidel@jonseidel· 21d

More than a year after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in his favor (and more than four years after a jury found him guilty), ex-Chicago Ald. Patrick Daley Thompson's case is headed back to the district court on a challenge to some (but not all) of his convictions.

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Submitted April 22, 2025 Decided July 24, 2026
Before
JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge* AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge DORIS L. PRYOR, Circuit Judge
No. 22-2254
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
PATRICK D. THOMPSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
No. 21-cr-00279-1 Franklin U. Valderrama,
Judge.
* Circuit Judge Flaum passed away on December 4, 2024. He did not participate deciding this case on remand from the Supreme Court of the United States, which is being resolved under 28 U.S.C. § 46(d) by a quorum of the panel.

ORDER
On January 8, 2024, we affirmed the district court’s denial of Thompson’s motion for acquittal on two counts of making “false statement[s]” to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1014 after a jury convicted him on those counts. See generally United States v. Thompson, 89 F.4th 1010 (7th Cir. 2024). On appeal, Thompson had argued the evidence was insufficient to convict him on the two counts because it showed only that he made misleading statements and not literally false statements. Id. at 1016–17. But our case law dictated affirmance. In United States v. Freed, 921 F.3d 716, 723 (7th Cir. 2019), we held that § 1014 criminalized statements that were misleading and not just statements that were literally false. And the evidence was sufficient to support that Thompson had made at least misleading statements to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, so we affirmed the district court’s denial of his motion for acquittal on the two counts. Thompson, 89 F.4th at 1017–18.
Thompson petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of certiorari to determine whether § 1014 criminalized misleading statements, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari on October 4, 2024. Thompson v. United States, 145 S. Ct. 116 (Mem) (2024). On March 21, 2025, the Supreme Court held that § 1014 “does not criminalize statements that are misleading but true.” Thompson v. United States, 604 U.S. 408, 418 (2025). Instead, under the statute, the statement “must be ‘false’” to sustain a conviction. Id. Accordingly, the Supreme Court vacated the judgment of this Court and remanded for further proceedings.
Pursuant to Circuit Rule 54, the government asked that we evaluate the sufficiency of the evidence with the aid of additional briefing to determine whether Thompson’s statements were literally false and not merely misleading. Thompson, on the other hand, “submits that the district court, which heard the evidence at trial, is best positioned in t…

Jon Seidel@jonseidel· 28d

UPDATE: Motion granted. U.S. District Judge April Perry extends briefing on whether there should be a special counsel in the "Broadview Six" case until Aug. 18. So don't expect a ruling before mid/late August, at the earliest.

07/16/2026 241 MOTION by USA for extension of time as to Michael Rabbitt, Katherine Marie Abughazaleh, Andre Martin, Catherine Sharp, Brian Straw as to motion for miscellaneous relief, 226 , miscellaneous other, 225 , miscellaneous other, 227 Government's Unopposed Motion to Extend Time to File Its Response to Motions in Dkt. 225, 226, 227
(Whalen, Nathaniel) (Entered: 07/16/2026)
07/16/2026 242 NOTICE of Motion by Nathaniel Luke Whalen for presentment of motion for extension of time, 241 before Honorable April M. Perry on 7/21/2026 at 10:30 AM. (Whalen, Nathaniel) (Entered: 07/16/2026)
07/17/2026 243 MINUTE entry before the Honorable April M. Perry: Motion for extension of time 241 is granted. The Government's response to Defendants' motions 225, 226, and 227 is due by 8/4/2026. The reply date is extended to 8/18/2026. There is no need for the parties to appear at the motion hearing scheduled for 7/21/2026. Mailed notice. (jcc,) (Entered: 07/17/2026)

Jon Seidel@jonseidel· 29d

NEW: U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman denies a bid by ex-Loretto Hospital CFO Anosh Ahmed for a hearing — or dismissal of charges — over alleged misconduct by Chicago feds. She says he can try again if he returns to the USA to face charges. Ruling: cst.brightspotcdn.com/3c/bc/d8821c...

CONCLUSION
The Court denies Ahmed’s Motion to Join [110], without prejudice. No relief, including
access to sealed discovery, will be granted unless and until Defendant is arraigned, in-person, before
this Court. If Ahmed submits to the Court’s jurisdiction, he is given leave to renew his Motion to
Dismiss the Indictment on prosecutorial misconduct grounds.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: 7/16/2026
Entered: _____________________________
SHARON JOHNSON COLEMAN

Jon Seidel@jonseidel· 29d

Federal prosecutors in Chicago are again asking for more time to respond to a request from members of the "Broadview Six" for a special counsel to investigate U.S. Attorney Andrew Boutros and others. If granted, this likely pushes Judge April Perry's ruling into mid-August.

GOVERNMENT’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE ITS RESPONSE TO MOTIONS IN DKT. 225, 226, 227
Now comes the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, by its attorney, ANDREW S. BOUTROS, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, and moves for an extension of time of 14 days, from July 21, 2026, to August 4, 2026, in which to file its response to the pending motions filed by Rabbitt, et. al. relating to a special prosecutor (Dkt. 225, 226, 227).
In support of its motion, the Government states as follows:
1. All charges against Rabbitt, et. al., have been dismissed with prejudice. Accordingly, they are not in custody or facing any charges. The Government filed its response to former Defendants’ requests for attorney’s fees and related discovery on July 7, 2026.
2. Pending are the motions asking this Court to appoint another attorney under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 42 to initiate contempt proceedings, or for this Court to use its inherent authority in a similar manner. Dkt. 225, 226, 227. Those

motions raise different substantive legal issues and analysis than the attorney’s fees
motions.
3. The undersigned Assistant United States Attorney is helping prepare
the Government’s response to those motions. Since he was not part of the trial team,
he has needed time to review all the relevant materials while also researching the
issues raised by the various pending, lengthy, and complex motions. Given the
motions’ subject matter, additional time will also be needed for appropriate review.
4. Accordingly, the Government requests 14 additional days until August
4, 2026, to file its response. This is the Government’s second request for an extension.
This Court previously granted a 14-day extension.
5. Counsel for Rabbitt, et. al., has stated they do not have any objection to
that 14-day extension to respond to those motions.
WHEREFORE, the Government respectfully requests that this Court extend
the due date for its response to Dkt. 225, 226, 227 until August 4, 2026.
Respectfully submitted.
ANDREW S. BOUTROS
United States Attorney
By: s/ Nathaniel L. Whalen
NATHANIEL L. WHALEN
Assistant United States Attorney

Jon Seidel@jonseidel· Jul 15

Here's Boutros' comment, from the transcript:

MR. BOUTROS: Thank you, Your Honor.
8 So while this proceeding was taking place earlier
9 this morning, I was actually in the chief judge's courtroom
10 swearing in new AUSAs. So it was ironic as this was happening
11 that we were celebrating six new AUSAs being sworn in today,
12 three in the civil division and three in the criminal.
13 I came down from that to learn that Your Honor was
14 understandably quite upset. And I understood that Your Honor
15 was quite likely upset when I saw the minute order that was
16 issued, I believe, yesterday seeking today's hearing.
17 It is my very sincere belief, Your Honor, that no
18 prosecutor acted intentionally in misleading you, and that
19 there was no desire to mislead the Court and no deliberate
20 misconduct on the part of the prosecutors.
21 I know Your Honor has indicated that you may hold a
22 hearing or will hold a hearing. We obviously defer to Your
23 Honor. But I did want you to know from me, that from my
24 assessment, having spoken extensively to the prosecutors, I do
25 not believe that whatever errors were done specifically as it

1 relates to the redactions, were done intentionally or with a
2 desire to mislead the Court.
3 And if Your Honor wants to hear more about that, I'm
4 happy to come back and explain why that is the case.
5 I also want to put on the record now that these
6 minutes have been unsealed pursuant to your order, that I was
7 completely unaware of any vouching that took place in the
8 grand jury, and only became aware of it on either April 27 or
9 the 28th. And immediately when I learned about that vouching,
10 the next day I moved to dismiss the indictment. That was the
11 first time any issue of vouching rose to my level. And,
12 frankly, to the level of anyone in the front office.
13 With respect to the excusing of grand jurors that
14 took place, which was the second time that the prosecutor
15 sought to return an indictment, that is an issue that I was
16 aware of in realtime. And once I became aware of it, I
17 immediately called off that grand jury session.
18
19 aware of
20 jury.
21
22 what you
23 don't want to deliberate or if there is tension in the grand
24 jury. I met with the chief judge. We established a protocol,
25 and then we sent out office-wide guidance for how AUSAs are to
I then reached out to the chief judge to make her what had happened, because she supervises the grand
We then issued all-office guidance on -- as to how -- are to do as an AUSA if you confront grand jurors who

respond in the future in the event that there is tension such
2 as what took place in that grand jury.
3
4 benefit,
5 jury was
6 different grand jury, we may be perceived as forum shopping,
7 unwilling to respect the decision of the grand jury. And
8 recognizing there is a difference in view as to the function
9 of the grand jury. Some constitutional law scholars will say
And I also want to put on the record and for your Judge, that the reason we didn't go into a new grand because we were concerned that by going into a
10 that the grand jury's job is to find probable cause and return
11 a true bill when there is probable cause. Others will say
12 that it is also the conscience of the community, and that it
13 speaks for the community, and it dates back to the colonies
14 when unfair kings were perhaps being oppressive to colonists.
15 And so that the indictment and the grand jury process was
16 codified in the Constitution to reflect the consciousness of
17 the community.
18 And so given that view, it was important to me that I
19 say we will go back into the same grand jury again and do it
20 right as opposed to trying to go into a new grand jury, which
21 would have certainly eliminated all of these issues, a fresh
22 grand jury.
23 I will also tell Your Honor that I was completely
24 unaware of any ex parte communications that took place in the
25 third instance until I became aware of the grand jury

transcripts. And within the next day or 24 hours thereabout,
2 we immediately dismissed Count 1.
3 So I was unaware of the vouching. I was unaware of
4 the ex parte communications, all except at the time that right
5 before we dismissed the indictment. And I made the decision
6 to dismiss the indictment.
7 I do at least commend the prosecutor who was in the
8 grand jury and who did have the ex parte contact that she had
9 the wherewithal to put it on the record, so that it could be
10 captured, because it also, Your Honor, as you know, what
11 happens in the grand jury stays in the grand jury. So I do
12 give that prosecutor credit for doing so.
13 I will tell Your Honor that as upset as you are and
14 have been, I was upset as well. I too had not seen conduct
15 like that like that, and it upset me, which is why we did
16 dismiss that indictment and proceeded with an information.
17 In doing so, we wanted to moot whatever had taken
18 place in the grand jury. And we were also removing the felony
19 that had now been hanging out there.
20 And to be sure, we could have gone back and I could
21 have instructed the prosecutors to go into a clean grand jury
22 and to return a new indictment. But it was my decision to
23 forego the felony charge and to proceed purely on the basis of
24 a misdemeanor that was reflective of all the things that we
25 have just finished talking about.

Jon Seidel@jonseidel· Jul 15

New: Members of the "Broadview 6" cite Chicago U.S. Attorney Andrew Boutros' offer to Judge Perry to "come back and explain," and they suggest he join in their request for a hearing to get to the bottom of alleged misconduct in their case. Full filing: cst.brightspotcdn.com/76/d7/92ece2...

III. U.S. Attorney Boutros Has Stated Publicly He Does Not Believe Misconduct Occurred, and That He Welcomes Further Investigation.
The Defendants’ concern that the payment of the attorneys’ fees by the U.S. Attorney’s Office will keep the truth and scope of the misconduct that occurred in this case hidden forever stems in large part from the public and private statements by U.S. Attorney Boutros regarding this case. A review of U.S. Attorney Boutros’ statements makes clear that he does not believe any misconduct actually occurred and thus no meaningful investigation or accountability can be counted on from his Office.5
U.S. Attorney Boutros previously informed the Court that he has already investigated this matter to his satisfaction and has sincerely determined that no deliberate misconduct occurred:
It is my very sincere belief, Your Honor, that no prosecutor acted intentionally in misleading you, and that there was no desire to mislead the Court and no deliberate misconduct on the part of the prosecutors.
5-21-26 Tr. at 50:17-21 (emphasis added).
While this Court might hold out hope that U.S. Attorney Boutros would change his “sincere
belief” after he investigates and realizes the true extent of the deception and fraud his prosecutors committed in this matter, he has foreclosed that route by stating he has, from his perspective, already fully investigated the matter and stands by his misguided belief that no misconduct occurred.
But I did want you to know from me, that from my assessment, having spoken extensively to the prosecutors, I do not believe that whatever errors
5 The agreement to stipulate that attorneys’ fees are warranted while continuing to publicly deny any wrongdoing further illustrates the need for this Court to initiate further investigation into this matter. Given the parties involved include political appointees at the highest levels of both the local and national Department of Justice offices, it is clear there will be no proper or objective …

were done specifically as it relates to the redactions, were done intentionally or with a desire to mislead the Court.6
5-21-26 Tr. at 50:23-51:2 (emphasis added).
Perhaps the most troubling statement by U.S. Attorney Boutros regarding is the message
he sent to all employees in the U.S. Attorney’s Office, literally within just a few hours of leaving the courtroom where this Court made clear its severe displeasure with the misconduct that occurred in this matter, and Mr. Boutros was forced to dismisss this case with prejudice. Rather than being chastened by all that had been exposed to date, immediately thereafter the U.S. Attorney wrote an office-wide email to publicly commend the conduct and actions of the AUSAs at the center of this self-created storm:
[T]oday was an important day for the Office. We saw three courageous prosecutors ...fight long and hard for a case they inherited when a colleague departed the Office. These prosecutors fought for the rule of law . . . Our Prosecutors were strong and courageous.
May 21, 2026 email from U.S. Attorney Boutros to all employees at U.S. Attorney’s Office (emphasis added). Thus, the public record created by U.S. Attorney Boutros regarding this case demonstrates he not only does not see or comprehend the grave misconduct committed by his prosecutors over the past nine months in directly deceiving this Court (among other things), but that he is actually sending the message to all the young (and old) prosecutors in the Office that the behavior of these prosecutors should be praised and thought of as “strong,” “courageous,” and having “fought for the rule of law,” when exactly the opposite should have been the message delivered from the lead law enforcement official in our district. The government’s general
6 Notably, U.S. Attorney Boutros offered to share with the Court (and presumably the public) why he holds such a sincere belief, “And if Your Honor wants to hear more about that, I'm happy to come back and explain why that…

agreement to write a check should not cause the Court to divest its authority to bring to light the web of misconduct that has now only begun to be exposed.
This goal of transparency and further investigation, moreover, is one which U.S. Attorney Boutros has publicly stated he “fully supports” because he is “confident that upon careful, unbiased consideration, [no] misconduct by the United States Attorney” will be found. See supra n.3 (quoting U.S. Attorney Boutros). The Court should accept this invitation from the U.S. Attorney and complete the process that is required to bring this matter to a just and public-confidence- restoring conclusion.

Jon Seidel@jonseidel· Jul 10

JUST IN: Judge Mary Rowland grants compassionate release to fraudster Yale Schiff, who questioned grand jury proceedings in this Sheri Mecklenburg case. Despite being "deeply troubled," Rowland "trusts that the government takes seriously its duty of candor" and will be consistent going forward.

The Court trusts that the Government takes seriously its duty of candor and its obligations to protect the public, and that the Government’s representations in this case reflect a good faith reading of 18 USC § 3582 and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. But the Court is deeply troubled at the significant departure this filing represents from the way the Government has treated dozens and dozens of motions for compassionate release, including in the case of United States v. Halderson, supra. The Court expects that the Government will take a position consistent to the one it takes here in similar circumstances in cases moving forward.

Jon Seidel@jonseidel· Jul 9

One week after the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would consider a challenge to assault-weapons bans, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sides with Gov. JB Pritzker and finds Illinois' ban is consistent with tradition. Full filing: cst.brightspotcdn.com/90/d2/c9610c...

In the
United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit
____________________ Nos. 24-3060, 24-3061, 24-3062 & 24-3063
CALEB BARNETT, et al.,
v.
KWAME RAOUL, Attorney General of the State of Illinois, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
Defendants-Appellants. ____________________
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.
Nos. 3:23-cv-209, 3:23-cv-141, 3:23-cv-192 & 3:23-cv-215 — Stephen P. McGlynn, Judge.
____________________
ARGUED SEPTEMBER 22, 2025 — DECIDED JULY 9, 2026 ____________________
Before BRENNAN, Chief Judge, and EASTERBROOK and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.
ST. EVE, Circuit Judge. In 2023, six months after a mass shooting at a Chicago suburb’s Independence Day parade left seven dead and dozens more wounded, Illinois enacted the Protect Illinois Communities Act. Among other things, the

Act criminalizes the manufacture, sale, delivery, purchase, and possession of assault weapons and large-capacity maga- zines. A grandfather clause permits preexisting lawful own- ers of the regulated items to continue possessing them.
Plaintiffs across Illinois swiftly challenged the Act, suing state and local officials for declaratory and injunctive relief protecting their right to keep and bear arms. One federal court granted a preliminary injunction, two did not, and all three losing parties appealed. We consolidated their appeals and held in Bevis v. City of Naperville, 85 F.4th 1175 (7th Cir. 2023), that the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their challenges.
One of the consolidated cases in Bevis was Barnett v. Raoul, which itself was the lead case for a set of four similar chal- lenges pending in the Southern District of Illinois. After build- ing out the record following Bevis, the Barnett parties pro- ceeded to a bench trial. In the end, the district court held that much of the Act violated the Second Amendment and that the offending provisions were not severable. The court therefore enjoined enforcement of the Act in its entirety. The defend- ants appealed.
For reasons that follow, we focus on the Act’s application to AR-15s and thirty-round rifle magazines. The Act’s re- strictions on these items, we hold, are consistent with the prin- ciples that underpin our Nation’s tradition of firearm regula- tion. Whether to adopt them is thus a decision reposed in our elected representatives, and we reverse.

Jon Seidel@jonseidel· Jul 9

Boutros' office tweeted this out just as we were taking our seats in the courtroom:

Statement of U.S. Attorney Andrew S. Boutros regarding the success of Operation New Dawn:

“I am proud of the work the federal anti-violence apparatus of Chicago achieved in roughly 60 days this spring and summer as Operation New Dawn: 484 arrests, of which 179 were newly charged defendants across 140 newly filed cases, and 305 were fugitives brought to justice. Each federal agency brings with them unique expertise, experiences, and backgrounds, and with this initiative, we united our talents and resources towards one common goal of a safer Chicagoland.”

Here’s a look back at some of what we did:

Jon Seidel@jonseidel· Jul 9

Here's McNally's seal order in the case. She lifted it July 2:

ORDER
The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA by its attorney, ANDREW S.
BOUTROS, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, having
moved this Court to Seal the Complaint, Affidavit, Arrest Warrants, and Motion to
Seal, and having demonstrated good cause in support of its motion,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Complaint, Affidavit, Arrest Warrants,
and Motion to Seal be sealed until the time of arrest of all defendants in this case or
further order of the Court, whichever occurs earlier. This Order does not prohibit law
enforcement personnel from disclosing the Complaint, Affidavit, and Arrest Warrants
as necessary to facilitate the enforcement of criminal law, including the execution of
the warrant, or to any federal official to assist the official receiving the information
in the performance of that official’s duties.
ENTER:

Honorable LAURA K. MCNALLY
United States Magistrate Judge

Jon Seidel@jonseidel· Jul 9

While we wait for today's hearing, some background about what led to U.S. Magistrate Judge Laura McNally summoning U.S. Attorney Andrew Boutros to court. Here's how McNally summed up July 1 from her point of view. It's the same day Boutros discussed details of this case at a DC press conference:

07/01/2026 7 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Laura K. McNally: On 7/1/26 at approximately 8:00 a.m., the Government called Chambers to state that it would be seeking to unseal the Complaint with redactions. The Government represented that it needed to obtain a ruling within the next 15 minutes. The Government then hand-delivered a set of proposed redactions to Chambers. At that time, no formal motion was tendered to the Court. Given imminent hearings in other criminal matters, the Court was not able to take up the oral request at that time, and the seal remained in place. At approximately 1:25 p.m., the Government sent a written motion to unseal to the Court's proposed order inbox. The Court informed the Government at 4:57 p.m. that it would take up the motion when it was formally filed on the docket. As of 7:00 p.m. on 7/1/26, no formal filing has appeared on the docket. The Government is ordered to formally file the motion that was submitted informally to the Court's proposed order inbox. The Government's motion is denied. In seeking to seal the entire Complaint on 6/29/26, the Government represented to this Court that the public filing of the Complaint before the arrest warrants could be executed could alert the defendants and result in their flight and the destruction of evidence. 2 The Court relied on the sincerity and truthfulness of that representation, and it granted the motion. 3 As of the date of the motion to unseal, less than 48 hours after the arrest warrants were issued, the Government represents that the defendants have not all been arrested. One defendant remains at large. The Government has offered no reason to believe that its prior concerns regarding flight or the destruction of evidence have been addressed, and the modest redactions proposed in the motion are, in the Court's view, insufficient to achieve the protections sought by the Government in their initial motion to entirely seal the Complaint. The Court will entertain a renewed motion to…

Jon Seidel@jonseidel· Jul 8

UPDATE: U.S. Magistrate Judge Laura McNally tells Chicago U.S. Attorney Andrew Boutros, "The motion is denied." Tomorrow's hearing is still on.

07/08/2026 23 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Laura K. McNally: The Court has reviewed the Government's Position Paper in Advance of July 9, 2026 Status Hearing 22 , which "asks that the Court strike the July 9, 2026, hearing date." The Court interprets this request as a motion to strike the hearing 10 . The motion is denied. Mailed notice (McNally, Laura) (Entered: 07/08/2026)

Jon Seidel@jonseidel· Jul 8

U.S. Attorney Andrew Boutros argues that he believed the press conference he attended in DC with Acting AG Todd Blanche and FBI Director Kash Patel complied with the seal order because it was "for the purpose of facilitating 'the enforcement of criminal law.'"

I. Background
On June 29, 2026, this Court signed a complaint and arrest warrants charging defendants Josue Pacheco Torres, Kleiver Monasterio Briceno, and Julian Pachano with kidnapping resulting in death and kidnapping conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1201(a) and (c). Dkt. 1. The affidavit submitted along with the complaint set forth facts establishing that defendants participated in the conspiracy in connection with their involvement in Tren de Aragua (“TdA”), a violent transnational gang that the Executive Branch designated as a foreign terrorist organization in February 2025. Dkt. 1.
That same day, the Court granted the government’s motion to seal the case. The sealing order stated in relevant part:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Complaint, Affidavit, Arrest Warrants, and Motion to Seal be sealed until the time of arrest of all defendants in this case or further order of the Court, whichever occurs earlier. This Order does not prohibit law enforcement personnel from disclosing the Complaint, Affidavit, and Arrest Warrants as necessary to facilitate the enforcement of criminal law, including the execution of the warrant, or to any federal official to assist the official receiving the information in the performance of that official’s duties.
Dkt. 3 (emphasis added). That same day, law enforcement began an operational plan to apprehend the two defendants who were not in federal custody.
The next day, the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois was invited to Washington, D.C. for a July 1, 2026, press event, which he learned he would be attending for the first time on June 30, 2026. The event focused on the enforcement of criminal law against TdA, and was led by the Acting Attorney General of the

United States and included the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, leadership from the Joint Task Force Vulcan (JTFV),1 the United States Attorneys for the Northern District of Texas and the Northern District of Illinois, among others. The purposes of the press announcement included:
1. AnnouncechargesfiledagainsteightTdAgangmembersacrosstwojudicial districts (Northern District of Texas and Northern District of Illinois), including the defendants charged in this case.
2. Deter future crimes by TdA, by publicly demonstrating that federal law enforcement would prioritize the prosecution and punishment of violent offenses committed by TdA members.
3. Generallydetercrimesbyothergangleaders,organizers,andmembers,by publicly stating that such individuals will face immediate and long-term criminal consequences for their criminal activity.
4. Encourage witness cooperation, by publicly identifying gang members and their activities, thereby encouraging individuals with knowledge to come forward.
5. Highlight and strengthen interagency coordination, which is particularly important for violent street gangs such as TdA that span multiple jurisdictions across the country.
1 JTFV was created in 2019 to eradicate MS-13 (another notorious, violent street gang), and was expanded at the direction of the Attorney General to target TdA. JTFV is comprised of Assistant United States Attorneys from across the country, as well as the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, and the Department of Justice’s National Security Division. The United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois has partnered with JTFV to conduct this investigation and bring the charges in the complaint.

6. Reassure the public that law enforcement is actively addressing gang violence, including TdA violence, which helps to build trust and encourage community members to report crimes.
Early in the morning on July 1, 2026, the United States Attorney traveled to Washington, D.C. By the time he reached D.C., defendant Torres had recently been arrested, defendant Briceno was in immigration custody, and defendant Pachano was still at large.
The United States Attorney understood the defendants’ arrests and charges would come up during the press conference. The United States Attorney likewise understood that such information was subject to a sealing order with which he was familiar, which included the carveout language bolded above. Accordingly, although the United States Attorney’s preference was to unseal the complaint and associated material before the press announcement, the United States Attorney understood that the press announcement complied with the letter and spirit of the sealing order, because the press announcement was for the purpose of facilitating “the enforcement of criminal law,” based on the event’s purposes, as described above.
Before the press announcement, the United States Attorney requested that the Assistant United States Attorneys assigned to this matter take steps to unseal the complaint, affidavit, and arrest warrants, either as to all defendants or in redacted form. Based on his interactions with his colleagues, the United States Attorney understood that the prosecution team was in communication with chambers, including one Assistant United States Attorney physically having gone to

Jon Seidel@jonseidel· Jul 8

JUST IN: Chicago U.S. Attorney Andrew Boutros asks U.S. Magistrate Judge Laura McNally to call off tomorrow's hearing, in which he's been summoned into court over "potential violations" of a seal order. Full filing: cst.brightspotcdn.com/8f/a5/57b15e...

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
Case No. 26 CR 345
Hon. Laura K. McNally Magistrate Judge
GOVERNMENT’S POSITION PAPER IN ADVANCE OF JULY 9, 2026, STATUS HEARING
The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, by its attorney, ANDREW S. BOUTROS, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, respectfully submits this position paper in advance of the July 9, 2026, hearing regarding the sealing order entered in this case. Dkt. 10. As detailed below, (i) the government acted in good faith, (ii) with the intent to comply with this Court’s sealing order, and (iii) complied with the Court’s order, which allowed for the government to disclose the complaint, affidavit, and arrest warrant “as necessary to facilitate the enforcement of criminal law.” Dkt. 3. Given all of this—as well as the separation of powers, deliberative process, pre-decisional, and interagency privilege concerns raised by the Court’s potential inquiry—the government respectfully submits that the Thursday, July 9, 2026, hearing should be terminated without further action by this Court.

Jon Seidel@jonseidel· Jul 8

The feds just made it official: They won't fight a bid by members of the "Broadview 6" for attorneys' fees. They do "not concede that the United States has acted or done anything to warrant those fees." They also say there should be no discovery. Full filing: cst.brightspotcdn.com/dc/d1/e34a37...

I. Hyde Amendment Motion
Discussion
The Hyde Amendment motions are not ripe for decision and may never be. The United States does not intend to contest defendants’ entitlement to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs in this matter as permitted by statute. (To be clear, the United States’ litigation decision not to challenge the defendant’s entitlement to fees, like in any typical settlement, does not concede that the United States has acted or done anything to warrant those fees.) The parties are currently attempting to work out the amount of recoverable fees and expenses. This court should take defendants’ Hyde Amendment motions under advisement while the parties attempt to amicably resolve this civil issue in good faith. The United States received the last of the former defendants’ fee submissions the day before this response was being filed, so the parties are now in a position to negotiate.
II. Discovery
Discovery related to defendants’ Hyde Amendment motions is not warranted under the circumstances of this case nor under applicable law. Defendants sought discovery, in their own words, to give them the “opportunity to demonstrate the bad faith, vexatious, and/or frivolous nature of this misguided prosecution.” Dkt. 206. But they will not be required to make that showing, so there is no reason or basis under the statute or otherwise to conduct that discovery.

Jon Seidel@jonseidel· Jul 3

Finally, here is McNally's original order sealing documents in the case:

Jon Seidel@jonseidel· Jul 3

Here also is McNally's tick-tock over what happened with the attempt to unseal the case:

Jon Seidel@jonseidel· Jul 3

Here's McNally's order that Boutros appear in court:

07/02/2026 10 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Laura K. McNally: For the reasons stated on the record in Court on 7/2/26, the Court has serious concerns regarding the Government's compliance on 7/1/26 and 7/2/26 with the order sealing this case 3 . Accordingly, on the Court's own motion, this matter is set for hearing on 7/9/26 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 1743 for further discussions about potential violations of the sealing order. United States Attorney Andrew Boutros is ordered to attend this hearing in person. Defendant's presence is waived at this hearing. Mailed notice (McNally, Laura) (Entered: 07/02/2026)

Jon Seidel@jonseidel· Jul 2

UPDATE: At the request of the feds, U.S. District Judge April Perry gives prosecutors until July 21 to respond a series of motions, including the request for a special counsel, in the "Broadview Six" case. Briefing now extends into August, so we're unlikely to see a ruling before then.

07/01/2026 235 MOTION by USA for extension of time as to Michael Rabbitt, Katherine Marie Abughazaleh, Andre Martin, Catherine Sharp, Brian Straw as to miscellaneous other, 225 , motion for miscellaneous relief, 226 , miscellaneous other, 227 Government's Unopposed Motion to Extend Time to File Its Response to Motions in Dkt. 225, 226, 227
(Whalen, Nathaniel) (Entered: 07/01/2026)
07/01/2026 236 NOTICE of Motion by Nathaniel Luke Whalen for presentment of motion for extension of time, 235 before Honorable April M. Perry on 7/7/2026 at 10:30 AM. (Whalen, Nathaniel) (Entered: 07/01/2026)
07/02/2026 237 MINUTE entry before the Honorable April M. Perry: Motion for extension of time 235 is granted. The Government's response to Defendants' motions 225 , 226 , and 227 is due by 7/21/2026. The reply date is extended to 8/4/2026. There is no need for the parties to appear at the motion hearing scheduled for 7/7/2026. Mailed notice. (jcc,) (Entered: 07/02/2026)

Jon Seidel@jonseidel· Jul 2

UPDATE: The FBI's rapid response Twitter account replied tonight to a post by Kyle Seraphin about the outgoing Chicago FBI chief. Our @chicago.suntimes.com story is here: chicago.suntimes.com/politics/202...

JUST IN: The Special Agent in Charge of the FBI Chicago Field Office was just removed from his position.

"I've never backed down from a fight, as long as it meant our personnel could continue serving the FBIs mission. Unfortunately, that has proven unpopular over time and my

It’s simple:

Anyone who is not on board with THIS FBI under the leadership of President Trump—which has achieved the lowest murder rate ever—is free to leave.

Jon Seidel@jonseidel· Jul 1

UPDATE: Judge Holleb Hotaling has agreed to a "brief" delay of tomorrow's sanctions hearing. She gives defense attorneys until 7/10 to file their own brief and promises to reset the hearing "as appropriate."

07/01/2026 31 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Keri L. Holleb Hotaling: The Court is in receipt of the Government's Opening Brief on Sanctions Hearing and Request for Continuance [Dkt. 30]. After review of the same, the Court hereby grants the Government's request for a brief continuance of the July 2, 2026 hearing. Counsel for Mr. Fagan, Mr. Edwards, and Mr. Toney shall file a response brief, if any, addressing some or all of the issues raised by the Government on or before July 10, 2026. The Court will reset the hearing date as appropriate upon review of any briefs filed by counsel for Messrs. Fagan, Edwards, and Toney. (rbf, ) (Entered: 07/01/2026)

Jon Seidel@jonseidel· Jul 1

The feds also included this footnote about a video that appears to contradict an account given to the judge of the shooting of Demond Edwards:

11 Indeed, the government moved so quickly to dismiss the complaint that the government itself did not appreciate the full context of the video and how it fit into the events that transpired that day. Specifically, the video in question captures approximately the last 25 seconds of the encounter between the TFO and Edwards prior to the shooting. Of course, the

interaction between the two lasted for minutes and those earlier interactions leading up to the video, including Edwards striking the TFO, were not captured by that video, or other videos. As such, although the motion to dismiss described the video as “appear[ing] inconsistent with the description in the Affidavit,” the video, of course, does not present the entirety of the interaction between the TFO and Edwards, which remained unknown at the time, but has since become known to the government based on the extensive work the government has done since then.

Jon Seidel@jonseidel· Jul 1

Federal prosecutors in Chicago say U.S. Magistrate Judge Keri Holleb Hotaling has no authority to hold a planned sanctions hearing Thursday tied to an ATF sting. They also say the "presumption of regularity" is "entitled to adherence and respect." Full filing: cst.brightspotcdn.com/78/e4/f80a1b...

GOVERNMENT’S OPENING BRIEF ON SANCTIONS HEARING AND REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE
The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, by its attorney, ANDREW S. BOUTROS, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, respectfully submits this opening brief concerning the hearing on sanctions ordered by this Court on June 18, 2026, as supplemented by the Court’s order of June 26, 2026 (hereinafter “the Court’s Orders”). Dkt. Nos. 21, 28.
I. SUMMARY OF GOVERNMENT’S BRIEF
The government’s position is that this Court lacks the authority to conduct the hearing contemplated by the Court’s Orders. First, the Court’s authority to conduct a hearing under Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), was mooted by dismissal of the criminal complaint. Second, this Court lacks the authority to hold any persons in contempt under the Federal Magistrates Act; at most, the Court can certify the matter to the district court for further proceedings. Third, this Court lacks authority to make any sanctions finding, as this authority too is exclusively vested in the district court.

Office—not anyone else, including this Court—that promptly brought these issues to the Court’s attention. Indeed, these are the actions of government actors acting in good faith, and for whom the presumption of regularity should strongly attach, as the law states should be the case. There is absolutely nothing in the government’s immediate notification to the Court of the discovered video evidence that should cause the court to disregard the presumption of regularity to which the government is entitled; to the contrary the government’s actions should give confidence to the Court that the presumption is entitled to adherence and respect. Indeed, nor should any other outside influences—which are irrelevant to these proceedings—bear on the Court’s consideration or weighing of the presumption of regularity.

Jon Seidel@jonseidel· Jun 30

From Cook County State's Attorney Eileen O'Neill Burke:

“We will not back down from defending Cook County’s long-standing ban on assault weapons. These weapons of war are designed to inflict the maximum amount of carnage and destruction and have no place in our communities. Countless victims have already endured the devastating impact of gun violence. We will defend this lawful ordinance before this nation’s highest court to continue protect the people of Cook County.”

Jon Seidel@jonseidel· Jun 30

The justices consolidated two cases and said they're granting the petition as to this question (from the Cook County case):