Former head of FBI’s Chicago office sues, saying he was forced out over ‘Broadview Six’ case; judge orders U.S. attorney to testify

Douglas DePodesta, who ran the FBI’s Chicago field office from 2024 until July, sued FBI Director Kash Patel, Attorney General Todd Blanche, U.S. Attorney Andrew Boutros, the FBI and the Justice Department on Monday, Nov. 2. His complaint says he was ordered to resign after Boutros blamed him for the collapse of a prosecution known as the “Broadview Six” case.¹ Also Monday, U.S. District Judge April M. Perry ordered Boutros and three assistant U.S. attorneys to testify under oath Nov. 16 in that case, in an order citing the complaint in a footnote.²

The suit, No. 1:26-cv-13506 in Chicago federal court, is assigned to U.S. District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly and has nine counts, including constitutional claims and, against Boutros personally, defamation. It seeks reinstatement, back pay and damages.¹

What the complaint alleges

These are DePodesta’s allegations; no ruling on them was found. The complaint says the criminal case charged six people, including then-congressional candidate Kat Abughazaleh, over a Sept. 26, 2025, protest at the Broadview, Illinois, detention center, and that Boutros dismissed the remaining charges May 21.¹

It says FBI Deputy Director Christopher Raia told DePodesta in early June that Boutros had told Justice Department superiors that DePodesta and his sister-in-law, a defense lawyer for one defendant, “had conspired to destroy” the case. It says DePodesta never discussed the case with her.¹

About a month later, the complaint says, Associate Deputy Director B. Chad Yarbrough told him Patel “did not want the controversy” and “insisted that DePodesta needed to be terminated, regardless of the truth” of the allegations, and he submitted his resignation July 1. It says Boutros, Blanche, Patel and Assistant Attorney General Colin McDonald met with DePodesta in his office Oct. 7, 2025, two days before the case first went to a grand jury.¹ “I was ordered to leave my job,” DePodesta told the Chicago Sun-Times.³

The testimony order

Perry’s order in United States v. Rabbitt, No. 25-cr-693, says there is “more than an adequate factual basis” for an inquiry “as to whether willful false statements were made to the Court.” It does not find that anyone made one. Boutros and prosecutors William Hogan, Matthew Skiba and Andres Almendarez must appear at 9 a.m. Nov. 16. The government has until 5 p.m. Nov. 5 to produce requested documents or, Perry wrote, she “will make factual findings.”²

The order says Hogan told the court March 30 there were “no communications of any nature” with anyone outside the office, other than local FBI investigators, about investigatory or charging decisions. Perry wrote that the government’s “additions of caveats and carve-outs” to that statement “indicates to the Court” that it “was false.” In a footnote on DePodesta’s allegation about the Oct. 7 meeting, she wrote that if it is “the type of discussion that the Government is alluding to,” it “directly contradicts AUSA Hogan’s assertion to the Court.”²

The government’s position

A spokesperson for Boutros’ office declined to comment on the suit, and the FBI and Justice Department had not responded, ABC7 Chicago reported.⁴

Boutros told Perry on May 21 he was “completely unaware of any vouching that took place in the grand jury” until April 27 or 28, and said Aug. 4 he was “quite certain he did not review” an October 2025 transcript, the order says. Perry wrote: “USA Boutros’s statements are hard to credit.”²

In an Oct. 30 filing, Associate Attorney General Stanley E. Woodward Jr. wrote that “the United States has not agreed to provide any information” and said “further proceedings would not be appropriate.”⁵

What the records do not show

• The docket copy SignalData checked about 6 p.m. Tuesday, Nov. 3, shows summonses issued and no answer or ruling; it can lag the court’s own system.⁶
• No record opened shows what Boutros told Patel or Blanche, or what Patel decided, beyond the complaint’s account.¹
• SignalData did not open the grand jury transcripts or the March 30 filing, described here from the order and complaint.²¹