* Capitol News Illinois…

As former Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan approaches six months in a West Virginia federal prison, the high-profile legal team he hired to handle his appeal made long-awaited arguments Thursday, urging the longtime Democratic power broker’s conviction on bribery and other corruption charges be overturned.

Arguing to a 7th Circuit Court of Appeals panel, lawyer Amy Saharia said federal prosecutors’ core legal theory — that Madigan and electric utility Commonwealth Edison were engaged in a reciprocal “quid pro quo” bribery relationship for eight years beginning in 2011 — was fundamentally flawed.

“The alleged ‘quo’ … is far too vague,” Saharia told the appellate judges.

Government attorneys had told the jury repeatedly during Madigan’s four-month trial that ended last year that Madigan enjoyed a “stream of benefits” from ComEd, namely the hiring of the speaker’s political allies, in exchange for his “official action” on ComEd’s behalf in Springfield.

But Saharia drilled down on what defense lawyers argued just as often in the course of the trial: That despite hundreds of hours of wiretapped phone calls, hundreds of other pieces of evidence and testimony from dozens of witnesses, prosecutors never produced evidence of a quid pro quo agreement.

* Click here for the full audio of yesterday’s proceedings. The Tribune…

The three-judge panel that held the roughly 45-minute hearing was composed of two Republican nominees, Judges Frank Easterbrook and Michael Scudder, and Judge Nancy Maldonado, who was nominated by Democratic President Joe Biden.

Scudder did the bulk of the questioning, which seemed to be evenly split between the sides and focused on language in jury instructions over the definition of “corruptly” as well as what prosecutors had to prove about Madigan’s intent.

Of the three on the panel, only Easterbrook, known for his often tough grilling of lawyers appearing before him, did not ask a question of either side.

A ruling will come at a later date.

* The Tribune’s Jason Meisner…

Saharia also says the government's case is vague on when and how Madigan allegedly entered the conspiracy.
"It's not even clear what the govenrment thinks he agreed to in 2011," she says.

— Jason Meisner (@jmetr22b) April 9, 2026

* Sun-Times…

When it was [ Assistant U.S. Attorney Julia Schwartz] turn, [Judge Michael Scudder] asked her to identify the “focused and concrete matter” in the ComEd conspiracy.

“The specific and focused matter that the conspiracy focused on in 2011,” Schwartz said, “was Madigan’s support on ComEd legislation and, specifically, legislation affecting ComEd’s rates and its bottom line.”

Scudder asked why that’s “not proceeding at too high of a level of generality.” She said “legislation, official action a speaker of a state house takes to move legislation — to get it on the calendar, to help whip up the votes to get it passed — are all kind of in the heartland of official actions.”

[Judge Nancy Maldonado] asked Schwartz about a recording of Madigan and Solis, in which they discussed Solis’ 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 “don’t worry about it.” […]

Schwartz told her “that recording should be viewed as a whole.” The men went on to discuss Madigan’s son Andrew, who is not accused of wrongdoing. Schwartz said that Madigan eventually told Solis there was actually something he could do — “help my son.”

* Saharia’s response…

Turning to the instruction referenced above, Saharia says "nothing in Snyder holds that the government does not need to prove an intent to be influenced or rewarded."

— Jon Seidel (@SeidelContent) April 9, 2026

* More…

* Bloomberg | Madigan Corruption Oral Argument Focuses on Whose Intent Matters: In considering the high-profile corruption convictions of ex-Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan (D), the Seventh Circuit on Thursday drilled down on a key question: How should jurors consider an alleged bribe-taker’s intent? Under the US Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Snyder v. United States, it doesn’t matter whether an official actually meant to take any action after accepting a bribe, said Assistant US Attorney Julia Schwartz.

* ABC Chicago | Ex-Speaker Mike Madigan appeal goes in front of 3-judge panel in Chicago court Thursday: The three-judge panel did not seem to give any reals hints of which way they might be leaning. And after the hearing Judge Easterbrook said they would take the case under advisement with a ruling coming at a later time. Madigan asked President Donald Trump for a pardon late last year.