Former Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan (D) is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review his federal corruption conviction, arguing that the jury in his case received improper legal instructions and that the conduct cited by prosecutors did not amount to a criminal offense.
Madigan, the longest-serving legislative leader in U.S. history, was sentenced to more than seven years in prison after being convicted of using his powerful position to financially benefit himself and political associates.
According to a petition docketed Wednesday, Madigan contends that jurors were improperly instructed before reaching their verdict. He also argues that the evidence presented during his trial failed to establish that he committed a crime under federal law.
The appeal makes Madigan the latest elected official to ask the nation’s highest court to review a corruption conviction on the grounds that actions prosecutors characterized as criminal were instead part of legitimate political activity.
In the petition, Madigan’s attorneys argued that the government advanced an overly broad interpretation of federal bribery laws.
“The novel bribery theories the government zealously pursued against Speaker Madigan stretch federal bribery law in ways that threaten to criminalize and chill lawful interactions between state and local officials and their constituents,” his attorneys wrote in the filing.
The Supreme Court is not required to hear the case. The justices receive thousands of petitions each year and decline the overwhelming majority of them. Madigan’s request is expected to be considered after the Court returns from its summer recess.
A federal jury convicted Madigan last year on 10 counts, including bribery, wire fraud, and conspiracy. He later received a prison sentence of seven and a half years.
Jurors concluded that Madigan improperly advanced the legislative agenda of Illinois-based utility company Commonwealth Edison in exchange for the company directing more than $3 million to his friends and political allies.
In a separate scheme, prosecutors also secured a conviction after alleging that Madigan agreed to recommend a city alderman for appointment to a state board in exchange for business referrals.
In challenging his conviction, Madigan has raised several legal arguments. Among them is his claim that he did not act “corruptly,” a requirement under the federal program bribery statute. He argues that the judge overseeing his trial applied a legal standard that was too lenient when instructing the jury.
Madigan’s latest appeal comes after a three-judge panel on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected his arguments in April, leaving his conviction in place.
Representing Madigan before the Supreme Court is Lisa Blatt of Williams & Connolly, a veteran advocate with extensive experience arguing cases before the high court.
His petition also comes as the Supreme Court has recently issued several decisions narrowing the scope of federal bribery, honest-services fraud, and related public corruption statutes.
In 2016, the Court overturned the corruption conviction of former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (R). In 2023, the justices reversed the bribery conviction of a longtime aide to former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D). The following year, the Court also overturned the conviction of a former Indiana mayor who had been found guilty of rigging a government trash contract.
Madigan is now asking the Supreme Court to take up his case and determine whether the legal standards applied during his trial were consistent with federal law. Whether the justices agree to hear the appeal will be decided after the Court reconvenes from its summer break.
[READ MORE: Bill O’Reilly Rips Fauci After Fifth Amendment Invocations at Senate Hearing]
