Convicted ex-Illinois House Speaker Michael J. Madigan has enlisted for his criminal appeal some of the same lawyers who convinced the U.S. Supreme Court last year to narrow the feds’ use of a bribery law — delaying Madigan’s trial in the process.
Now their effort to reverse Madigan’s conviction could involve trying to get the nation’s highest court to further limit laws meant to fight public corruption.
Madigan formally appealed his conviction July 23. Then, earlier this week, six attorneys from the Williams & Connolly law firm based in Washington, D.C., filed appearances on behalf of the once-powerful Southwest Side Democrat.
Among them is Lisa Blatt, who’s been described as a “legendary high court litigator” and touts an 81% win rate at the Supreme Court. Another is Amy Saharia, whose clients have included Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, records show.
Blatt and Saharia also worked on the case of former Portage, Indiana, Mayor James Snyder, raising questions about whether a federal bribery law aimed at state and local officials also criminalizes after-the-fact rewards known as “gratuities.”
The Supreme Court ruled that it does not, siding with Blatt and Saharia. But the ruling left open a key question about the law: When does a state or local official act “corruptly”?
That question could now be a key part of Madigan’s argument before the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals — and possibly beyond. The other members of Madigan’s Williams & Connolly appellate team are Allison Eisen, Patrick Looby, Kaitlin Wetz and David Zinn.
They did not respond to a message seeking comment.
Blatt is well known for the blunt, humorous, don’t-back-down style she brings to the formal setting of the Supreme Court. She tussled with Justice Neil Gorsuch in an unusually tense moment earlier this year after she accused opposing counsel of lying.
“I think you should be more careful with your words, Ms. Blatt,” Gorsuch told her.
“Well, they should be more careful in … mischaracterizing a position by an experienced advocate of the Supreme Court, with all due respect,” Blatt shot back.
Blatt argued Snyder’s case in April 2024, fielding questions about the elements of the bribery law at issue — including its requirement that a bribe involve something worth $5,000 or more. The justices asked how the law applied to recipients of federal funds, like hospitals.
Blatt said “it covers any grantee.”
“The doctor who removes your wart, fine,” Blatt told the justices. “But the doctor who takes your gallbladder out or does your face — like my plastic surgeon — no, that’s worth over $5,000.”
People in the courtroom laughed. Blatt told them, “I’m not even joking.”
“Snow removal is worth over $5,000,” she said. “Writing a letter for your kid to get into college, that’s priceless. … People give gifts all the time to nurses after an operation.”
When gratuities are criminalized, she argued, such gifts are “a crime.”
The word “corruptly” appears in the bribery law, and the justices spent part of the argument discussing how it should be defined. But despite their apparent interest, the justices did not define the word when they handed down their ruling two months later.
U.S. District Judge John Blakey delayed Madigan’s trial for six months to let the high court’s process play out. But the definition of “corruptly” was still up for debate when lawyers sorted out jury instructions in his case last January.
The jury ultimately convicted Madigan in February of 10 counts, including three based on the law at issue in the Supreme Court’s Snyder ruling.
Blakey has now sentenced Madigan to 7 ½ years in prison, and the former politician is due to surrender on Oct. 13. But Madigan trial lawyers Dan Collins and Tom Breen asked Blakey to let him remain free during his appeal.
In doing so, they highlighted some of the key issues they expect to be raised. Questions revolving around the word “corruptly” are among them. Madigan’s jury was not properly instructed on the term, Collins and Breen argued.
“Few areas of criminal law are more complex, and more rapidly evolving, than federal bribery law,” they wrote in their brief.
But federal prosecutors have since pushed back. They insist the arguments from Madigan’s lawyers “all lack merit.”
“Madigan should report to the Bureau of Prisons on October 13, 2025, as ordered,” they wrote.
Contributing: Dave McKinney