When former Illinois House Speaker Michael J. Madigan<\/a> went to trial, <\/b>much was made of the Democrat\u2019s \u201cquiet, mysterious\u201d <\/b>nature in Springfield, <\/b>earning him the nickname \u201cSphinx.\u201d<\/p>\n But Thursday, when a new legal team<\/a> <\/b>took their appeal of Madigan\u2019s corruption conviction <\/b>to the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, it was longtime Judge Frank <\/b>Easterbrook <\/b>who sat quietly and mysteriously, asking no questions and giving no hint as to how he might lean.<\/p>\n Judges <\/b>Michael <\/b>Scudder <\/b>and <\/b>Nancy <\/b>Maldonado <\/b>did the talking instead, questioning Madigan attorney Amy <\/b>Saharia <\/b>and <\/b>Assistant U.S. Attorney Julia <\/b>Schwartz. When the argument ended, it was hard to say how the three-judge panel might rule, though Scudder and Maldonado seemed skeptical of Madigan\u2019s position.<\/p>\n \u201cMr. Madigan corrupted state government at the highest levels,\u201d Schwartz told the panel. She called his actions \u201cquintessential bribery made all the more serious by the extent of time and the critical legislation that it impacted.\u201d<\/p>\n The 40-minute argument on the 27th floor of the Dirksen Federal Courthouse drew members of Madigan\u2019s family, including former Illinois Attorney General <\/b>Lisa Madigan. Former Assistant U.S. Attorney Amarjeet <\/b>Bhachu<\/a>, who left the U.S. attorney\u2019s office after <\/b>helping secure Madigan\u2019s February 2025 conviction<\/a>, also attended.<\/p>\n So did Lisa Blatt, <\/b>a well-known high court litigator who claims an <\/b>82% win rate before the U.S. Supreme Court. She now represents Madigan, along with Saharia and others, suggesting Madigan already is looking past Chicago\u2019s federal appeals court.<\/p>\n Lisa Blatt, an attorney for former Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, leaves the Dirksen Federal Courthouse Thursday after arguments before the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.<\/p>\n<\/figcaption><\/p>\n Anthony Vazquez\/Sun-Times<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n For now, Madigan is six months into the <\/b>7 \u00bd year prison sentence<\/a> he\u2019s serving at a minimum-security prison camp <\/b>in West Virginia, 500 miles from Chicago.<\/p>\n Easterbrook is the 7th Circuit\u2019s longest-serving judge, appointed in 1985 <\/b>by President Ronald Reagan. President Donald Trump appointed Scudder in 2018, <\/b>and President Joe Biden appointed Maldonado in 2024. It\u2019s unclear when the panel will rule.<\/p>\n The appeals court also is set to hear arguments Tuesday <\/b>in the related case of former ComEd CEO Anne <\/b>Pramaggiore and ex-lobbyist Michael McClain, convicted separately from Madigan<\/a> in 2023.<\/p>\n Their convictions all revolved around a bribery law <\/b>limited by the Supreme Court<\/a> in 2024.<\/p>\n Madigan\u2019s conviction centered on two schemes. In one, ComEd paid five Madigan allies $1.3 million over eight years so Madigan would look more favorably at the utility\u2019s legislation. The money was funneled through third-party firms, and the recipients did hardly any work.<\/p>\n The other involved a deal to have then-Chicago Ald. Danny Solis installed on a state board <\/b>in exchange for Solis\u2019 help in landing private business for Madigan\u2019s tax appeal law firm.<\/p>\n Former Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan (second from left) leaves the Dirksen Federal Courthouse on Thursday following arguments before the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of her father, former Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan. Amy Saharia (fourth from left) argued on Michael Madigan\u2019s behalf.<\/p>\n<\/figcaption><\/p>\n Anthony Vazquez\/Sun-Times<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n Saharia told the panel Thursday that the ComEd allegations <\/b>in Madigan\u2019s case were <\/b>\u201cfar too vague,\u201d <\/b>that there were errors in the jury instructions, and that prosecutors failed to prove a quid pro quo <\/b>between Madigan and Solis.<\/p>\n Much of the argument revolved around the specificity <\/b>\u2014 or lack thereof \u2014 in the bribery claims against Madigan involving ComEd. It\u2019s alleged that \u201cSpeaker Madigan knew that these benefits were being showered on him in exchange for his official action on future legislation,\u201d Saharia told the panel.<\/p>\n \u201cFuture, unidentified legislation is not a specific question or matter,\u201d she argued.<\/p>\n Saharia insisted specificity is crucial, because \u201cthat is what distinguishes ingratiation \u2014 lawful ingratiation \u2014 from unlawful bribery.\u201d<\/p>\n Scudder pushed back, telling her there was evidence of a specific request that Madigan help ComEd get out from under the \u201crate difficulties that it was having.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cIt doesn\u2019t have to be as specific as you\u2019re suggesting,\u201d Scudder told her.<\/p>\n But Madigan\u2019s ComEd scheme began in 2011 and included legislation <\/b>in 2016 before it ended in 2019. Saharia told the panel there\u2019s \u201cno evidence\u201d <\/b>that Madigan in 2011 had ComEd\u2019s 2016 proposal \u201cin the mind.\u201d<\/p>\n When it was Schwartz\u2019s turn, Scudder asked her to identify the \u201cfocused and concrete matter\u201d in the ComEd conspiracy.<\/p>\n \u201cThe specific and focused matter that the conspiracy focused on in 2011,\u201d Schwartz said, \u201cwas Madigan\u2019s support on ComEd legislation and, specifically, legislation affecting ComEd\u2019s rates and its bottom line.\u201d<\/p>\n Scudder asked why that\u2019s \u201cnot proceeding at too high of a level of generality.\u201d <\/b>She said \u201clegislation, official action a speaker of a state house takes to move legislation \u2014 to get it on the calendar, to help whip up the votes to get it passed \u2014 are all kind of in the heartland of official actions.\u201d<\/p>\n Maldonado asked Schwartz about a recording of Madigan and Solis, in which they discussed Solis\u2019 bid for a state board seat. Solis was secretly working for the FBI at the time and recorded Madigan. When Solis offered to help Madigan, Madigan told him \u201cdon\u2019t worry about it.\u201d<\/p>\n Maldonado asked Schwartz \u201cwhat do you do\u201d <\/b>with that?<\/p>\n Schwartz told her \u201cthat recording should be viewed as a whole.\u201d <\/b>The men went on to discuss Madigan\u2019s son <\/b>Andrew<\/a>, who is not accused of wrongdoing. Schwartz said that Madigan eventually told Solis there was actually something he could do \u2014 \u201chelp my son.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n![\"Former](\"https:\/\/cst.brightspotcdn.com\/dims4\/default\/521ac2e\/2147483647\/strip\/true\/crop\/6122x4083+0+0\/resize\/840x560!\/quality\/90\/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fchorus-production-cst-web.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com%2Fbrightspot%2F6f%2Fd1%2F2eeb8979481f8965a77fe27bd3a0%2Fmadigan-260410-03.JPG\")
<\/p>\n<\/picture>\n