Trump's DOJ faces grand‑jury revolt
What happened
- On May 26, 2026, the New York Times reported judges and grand juries were increasingly rejecting Trump Justice Department cases over misconduct concerns. - In Chicago, Judge April Perry said she was “incredibly shocked” after prosecutors coached grand jurors, removed dissenters and redacted transcripts, reports said. - Next, the Justice Department could refile some dismissed cases, including the Wyoming indictments thrown out without prejudice on May 15.
Why it matters
The New York Times reported on May 26 that judges and grand juries are increasingly refusing to back Justice Department prosecutions tied to President Donald Trump, a development the paper said reflects a growing loss of faith in federal prosecutors. The pattern has shown up in grand-jury rooms, where indictments are supposed to be relatively easy to obtain, and in courtrooms, where judges have begun scrutinizing prosecutorial conduct that is usually hidden from public view. Raw Story, citing the Times’ reporting, described the level of judicial rebuke as extraordinary. Other recent reporting from Chicago, Wyoming and Washington shows the same pressure point: prosecutors are not only losing cases, but also losing the institutional deference they usually receive. ### Why are grand juries suddenly a problem for federal prosecutors? Federal grand juries usually operate in secret and apply a low threshold, deciding only whether probable cause exists to bring charges. Politico reported in January that grand juries had become “a headache” for prosecutors advancing controversial Trump priorities, with recent refusals in Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington, D.C., and parts of Virginia. Law professor Thaddeus Hoffmeister told Politico the body had effectively been “resurrected,” while former Biden pardon attorney Liz Oyer said the refusals showed citizens still had power to resist prosecutions they viewed skeptically. (rawstory.com) The New York Times account, as summarized by Raw Story and other outlets, said the Justice Department’s problems are no longer limited to convictions at trial. Prosecutors have struggled even to secure indictments or keep charges alive long enough to reach trial, according to those reports. Barbara McQuade, the former U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan, told the Times that in two decades at the department she had never encountered a case in which judges examined grand-jury transcripts because of misconduct concerns. (politico.com) ### What happened in Chicago that drew such a sharp rebuke? Chicago U.S. District Judge April Perry dismissed charges against four remaining defendants in the so-called “Broadview Six” case after reviewing grand-jury transcripts that she said revealed misconduct by prosecutors. The Chicago Sun-Times reported on May 21 that U.S. Attorney Andrew Boutros made a rare courtroom appearance and acknowledged the case had been tainted, leading to the permanent dismissal of charges. (rawstory.com) Perry said she was “incredibly shocked” by what she saw in the transcripts and told Boutros that he was undercutting his own apology by continuing to denounce the defendants after abandoning the prosecution. Raw Story’s summary of the Times report said the misconduct included coaching grand jurors outside the jury room, removing jurors who voted against prosecutors, and redacting portions of transcripts later given to the judge. Perry said she had “never seen the types of prosecutorial behavior before a grand jury” that appeared in those records. (chicago.suntimes.com) ### What happened in Wyoming? Wyoming’s federal judges dismissed nine felony cases on May 15 after finding grand-jury misconduct by U.S. Attorney nominee Darin Smith, according to Cowboy State Daily. The cases included one first-degree murder prosecution, and the judges said Smith used “inflammatory and inappropriate” comments before the grand jury. (chicago.suntimes.com) The three-judge order said Smith referred to defendants as “murderers” and “bad people,” called cases “slam dunks,” and handed his business card to jurors before the judge entered the room. The court dismissed the indictments without prejudice, meaning prosecutors can seek charges again. Smith was also awaiting a Senate confirmation vote, the report said. (cowboystatedaily.com) ### Is this only about a few bad cases, or a wider credibility problem? The Justice Department has described the misconduct findings as anomalies, according to Raw Story’s summary of the Times report. But the same summary said legal experts tied the failures to deeper problems inside the department, including the installation of political loyalists in senior roles and the departure of experienced career prosecutors. (cowboystatedaily.com) A Brennan Center report published in April described a separate but related accountability fight: a proposed DOJ rule that would let the attorney general delay or block state-bar investigations of current or former department lawyers. The Brennan Center said the proposal was part of a broader Trump administration effort to weaken internal and external checks on DOJ lawyers, including attacks on judges and oversight systems. That report is advocacy, not a court finding, but it documents the wider dispute over how DOJ misconduct should be policed. (rawstory.com) ### What comes next? The Wyoming dismissals took effect only after a brief window for appeal, and the court said the charges were thrown out without prejudice, leaving room for prosecutors to seek new indictments. In Chicago, Judge Perry said sanctions against prosecutors could still be discussed after the collapse of the “Broadview Six” case. The next concrete test will be whether the Justice Department refiles any of the dismissed cases and whether judges allow those prosecutions to proceed. (brennancenter.org) (cowboystatedaily.com)
Key numbers
- On May 26, 2026, the New York Times reported judges and grand juries were increasingly rejecting Trump Justice Department cases over misconduct concerns.
- Next, the Justice Department could refile some dismissed cases, including the Wyoming indictments thrown out without prejudice on May 15.
- The New York Times reported on May 26 that judges and grand juries are increasingly refusing to back Justice Department prosecutions tied to President Donald Trump, a development the paper said reflects a growing loss of faith in federal prosecutors.
- The Chicago Sun-Times reported on May 21 that U.S.
What happens next
- The New York Times reported on May 26 that judges and grand juries are increasingly refusing to back Justice Department prosecutions tied to President Donald Trump, a development the paper said reflects a growing loss of faith in federal prosecutors.
- The Chicago Sun-Times reported on May 21 that U.S.
- Wyoming’s federal judges dismissed nine felony cases on May 15 after finding grand-jury misconduct by U.S.
Quick answers
What happened in Trump's DOJ faces grand‑jury revolt?
On May 26, 2026, the New York Times reported judges and grand juries were increasingly rejecting Trump Justice Department cases over misconduct concerns. In Chicago, Judge April Perry said she was “incredibly shocked” after prosecutors coached grand jurors, removed dissenters and redacted transcripts, reports said. Next, the Justice Department could refile some dismissed cases, including the Wyoming indictments thrown out without prejudice on May 15.
Why does Trump's DOJ faces grand‑jury revolt matter?
The New York Times reported on May 26 that judges and grand juries are increasingly refusing to back Justice Department prosecutions tied to President Donald Trump, a development the paper said reflects a growing loss of faith in federal prosecutors. The pattern has shown up in grand-jury rooms, where indictments are supposed to be relatively easy to obtain, and in courtrooms, where judges have begun scrutinizing prosecutorial conduct that is usually hidden from public view. Raw Story, citing the Times’ reporting, described the level of judicial rebuke as extraordinary. Other recent reporting from Chicago, Wyoming and Washington shows the same pressure point: prosecutors are not only losing cases, but also losing the institutional deference they usually receive. Why are grand juries suddenly a problem for federal prosecutors? Federal grand juries usually operate in secret and apply a low threshold, deciding only whether probable cause exists to bring charges. Politico reported in January that grand juries had become “a headache” for prosecutors advancing controversial Trump priorities, with recent refusals in Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington, D.C., and parts of Virginia. Law professor Thaddeus Hoffmeister told Politico the body had effectively been “resurrected,” while former Biden pardon attorney Liz Oyer said the refusals showed citizens still had power to resist prosecutions they viewed skeptically. (rawstory.com) The New York Times account, as summarized by Raw Story and other outlets, said the Justice Department’s problems are no longer limited to convictions at trial. Prosecutors have struggled even to secure indictments or keep charges alive long enough to reach trial, according to those reports. Barbara McQuade, the former U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan, told the Times that in two decades at the department she had never encountered a case in which judges examined grand-jury transcripts because of misconduct concerns. (politico.com) What happened in Chicago that drew such a sharp rebuke? Chicago U.S. District Judge April Perry dismissed charges against four remaining defendants in the so-called “Broadview Six” case after reviewing grand-jury transcripts that she said revealed misconduct by prosecutors. The Chicago Sun-Times reported on May 21 that U.S. Attorney Andrew Boutros made a rare courtroom appearance and acknowledged the case had been tainted, leading to the permanent dismissal of charges. (rawstory.com) Perry said she was “incredibly shocked” by what she saw in the transcripts and told Boutros that he was undercutting his own apology by continuing to denounce the defendants after abandoning the prosecution. Raw Story’s summary of the Times report said the misconduct included coaching grand jurors outside the jury room, removing jurors who voted against prosecutors, and redacting portions of transcripts later given to the judge. Perry said she had “never seen the types of prosecutorial behavior before a grand jury” that appeared in those records. (chicago.suntimes.com) What happened in Wyoming? Wyoming’s federal judges dismissed nine felony cases on May 15 after finding grand-jury misconduct by U.S. Attorney nominee Darin Smith, according to Cowboy State Daily. The cases included one first-degree murder prosecution, and the judges said Smith used “inflammatory and inappropriate” comments before the grand jury. (chicago.suntimes.com) The three-judge order said Smith referred to defendants as “murderers” and “bad people,” called cases “slam dunks,” and handed his business card to jurors before the judge entered the room. The court dismissed the indictments without prejudice, meaning prosecutors can seek charges again. Smith was also awaiting a Senate confirmation vote, the report said. (cowboystatedaily.com) Is this only about a few bad cases, or a wider credibility problem? The Justice Department has described the misconduct findings as anomalies, according to Raw Story’s summary of the Times report. But the same summary said legal experts tied the failures to deeper problems inside the department, including the installation of political loyalists in senior roles and the departure of experienced career prosecutors. (cowboystatedaily.com) A Brennan Center report published in April described a separate but related accountability fight: a proposed DOJ rule that would let the attorney general delay or block state-bar investigations of current or former department lawyers. The Brennan Center said the proposal was part of a broader Trump administration effort to weaken internal and external checks on DOJ lawyers, including attacks on judges and oversight systems. That report is advocacy, not a court finding, but it documents the wider dispute over how DOJ misconduct should be policed. (rawstory.com) What comes next? The Wyoming dismissals took effect only after a brief window for appeal, and the court said the charges were thrown out without prejudice, leaving room for prosecutors to seek new indictments. In Chicago, Judge Perry said sanctions against prosecutors could still be discussed after the collapse of the “Broadview Six” case. The next concrete test will be whether the Justice Department refiles any of the dismissed cases and whether judges allow those prosecutions to proceed. (brennancenter.org) (cowboystatedaily.com)
