(The Center Square) – A pre-sentencing hearing is scheduled Monday for convicted ex-Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan.

U.S. District Court Judge John Robert Blakey is expected to consider post-trial motions when he meets with prosecutors and defense attorneys Monday afternoon at the Everett McKinley Dirksen U.S. Courthouse in Chicago.

Blakey scheduled a second hearing Tuesday to consider valuation estimates related Madigan’s conviction on ComEd-related charges. The judge asked attorneys to meet and confer over whether evidence outside of the current record might be required.

Madigan, 83, was convicted Feb. 12 on 10 counts of bribery, conspiracy, wire fraud and use of a facility to promote unlawful activity.

The former speaker’s sentencing is scheduled for Friday, June 13.

U.S. government attorneys requested that Madigan serve 12.5 years in prison and pay a fine of $1.5 million. Madigan’s defense attorneys have asked that the former speaker be sentenced to a year of home confinement along with probation and community service.

Connie Mixon, professor of political science and director of the Urban Studies Program at Elmhurst University, said Madigan’s age is a factor, just as it was for ex-Chicago Alderman Ed Burke.

“I think the judge faces the same dilemma as the judge faced in the Ed Burke trial. Madigan’s going to be what, 83 years old? Even a few years, at that age, is a big deal,” Mixon told The Center Square.

Burke was sentenced to two years in prison and given a $2 million fine in 2024 after being convicted of corruption.

Government attorneys had recommended that Burke’s sentence be longer than six years.

Convicted Illinois politicians often receive sentences much shorter than prosecutors request. Mixon said former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich was an exception.

“Many thought that Blagojevich’s was excessively long. At least many made that argument, right, compared to some of the others,” Mixon told The Center Square.

President Donald Trump commuted Blagojevich’s 14-year prison sentence in 2020 and then granted the former governor a full pardon earlier this year.

Changes have taken place in the U.S. Attorney’s office since Madigan’s conviction.

Andrew Boutros took over as U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois earlier this year. Sarah Streicker is now leading the office’s public corruption and organized crime division following Amar Bhachu’s retirement.

“The case with Madigan had multiple attorneys. Sarah Streicker is a superb attorney with tons of experience. I do think they’re in good hands with Sarah Streicker taking over at this point,” Mixon said.

Assistant U.S. Attorneys Diane MacArthur and Julia Schwartz have continued to work on the case along with Streicker.

Sentencing is scheduled to follow Madigan’s this summer for four defendants convicted of corruption in the related ComEd Four case.

Madigan’s codefendant, former Illinois state representative and lobbyist Michael McClain, was not found guilty in the Madigan case. In 2023, McClain and three others were convicted in the ComEd case, and ComEd agreed to pay $200 million in fines as part of a deferred prosecution agreement.

McClain’s ComEd Four sentencing is scheduled for July 24.

Additional sentencing dates are July 14 for former ComEd lobbyist John Hooker, July 21 for ex-ComEd CEO Anne Pramaggiore, and August 5 for former contract lobbyist Jay Doherty.

Madigan served in the Illinois House from 1971 to 2021 and was speaker for all but two years between 1983 and 2021. He chaired the Democratic Party of Illinois for 23 years. Madigan also led the 13th Ward Democratic Organization and served as 13th Ward committeeman.

(The Center Square) – Taking fluoride out of public water systems across the country would result in millions more rotten teeth and cost $9.8 billion over five years, according to a new study. 

The study, published in JAMA Health Forum, found that if all 50 states removed fluoride from public water systems, kids would develop 25.4 million more decayed teeth over five years. The study noted that “tooth decay would disproportionately affect publicly insured and uninsured children compared to those with private dental insurance.”

After 10 years, the total number of decayed teeth would increase to 53.8 million at a cost of $19.4 billion, according to the study.

The simulation model used the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data of 8,484 participants.

It noted that “excessive fluoride exposure can cause mottled discoloration of the teeth” and that fluoride “becomes a neurotoxin at high levels.” The study further stated that “natural sources of drinking water with high levels of fluoride are associated with lower IQ scores.”

The study also noted that the U.S. National Toxicology Program released a monograph that concluded that drinking water with elevated fluoride levels has neurotoxic effects. That monograph “affirmed a lack of evidence for neurocognitive effects with fluoride exposure less than 1.5 parts per million, more than twice the amount of fluoridation recommended in public water systems by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.”

The study comes as Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. seeks to remove fluoride from public water systems. In April, Kennedy said he would study the issue and make new recommendations on fluoride use in public water systems.

The American Dental Association criticized that plan.

“As dentists, we see the direct consequences fluoride removal has on our patients and it’s a real tragedy when policymakers’ decisions hurt vulnerable kids and adults in the long term,” ADA President Brett Kessler, D.D.S., said. “Blindly calling for a ban on fluoridated water hurts people, costs money, and will ultimately harm our economy.”

The JAMA study concluded that “despite the potential harms of excessive fluoride exposure, fluoridation at safe levels offers both individual and societal benefits that would be at risk.” 

The study also noted the case of Calgary in Alberta, Canada. The city added fluoride to its public water system in 1991. The Calgary City Council voted in 2011 to remove fluoride. However, the city reversed course in March after an increase in cavities and a public vote. In the 2021 Civic General Election, 62% of voters supported fluoridation.

Calgary plans to reintroduce fluoride in drinking water starting at the end of June. To do so, it had to spend about $28.1 million on infrastructure improvements at Calgary’s two water treatment plants. Calgary expects to pay additional annual operating and maintenance costs of $1 million at both plants. It noted that “this translates into less than 10 cents per person, per month.”

After Calgary stopped fluoridating water in 2011, researchers at the University of Calgary conducted a study on tooth decay in a large sample of Calgary children and compared them to children in Edmonton, where fluoridation started in 1967 and remains in place.

“The research confirmed the removal of fluoride from drinking water had a negative impact on children’s oral health, where a significantly higher number of cavities were found amongst Calgary children compared to Edmonton children,” the city’s website noted.

Utah recently became the first state to ban the addition of fluoride to public drinking water. Utah lawmakers passed a measure that prohibits the addition of fluoride to public drinking water in Utah. That went into place on May 7, 2025.

Kennedy has urged other states to follow suit.

About 72% of municipal water systems in the U.S. provided fluoridated water in 2022, according to a report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

At least 12 states have laws mandating that communities of a certain size fluoridate the public water system, including California, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, Ohio and South Dakota, according to a report from the National Conference of State Legislatures. It noted at least 12 states have introduced bills prohibiting or repealing provisions related to the addition of fluoride in public water systems. Utah and Florida were the first states such legislation, according to the report.

(The Center Square) – Salvadoran national Kilmar Abrego Garcia is being returned from a Salvadoran maximum security prison to the United States, where he will face criminal charges.

Attorney General Pam Bondi announced late Friday afternoon that the suspected MS-13 gang member had been indicted by a grand jury in Tennessee on May 21, charging him with “alien smuggling” and “conspiracy to commit alien smuggling.”

“The grand jury found that over the past nine years Abrego Garcia has played a significant role in an alien smuggling ring. They found this was his full-time job – not a contractor. He was a smuggler of humans and children and women,” Bondi said. “Upon completion of his sentence, we anticipate he will be returned to his home country of El Salvador.”

Bondi added that the grand jury found that he was involved in “over 100” operations smuggling “thousands of illegal aliens.”

Controversy has surrounded Abrego Garcia since March, when the Trump administration mistakenly deported him to El Salvador due to an administrative error. Prior to that, Abrego Garcia was living in Maryland and had been arrested on suspicion of involvement in MS-13 in 2019, after immigrating illegally to the United States as a teenager with his parents around 2011. Officials prepared to deport Abrego Garcia then, but an immigration judge granted him “withholding of removal,” believing his life would be in danger if he were returned to El Salvador. 

But it was a later traffic stop in Tennessee that led to Abrego Garcia’s charges that were announced Friday. The Center Square previously reported that Garcia was stopped by Tennessee troopers for speeding in 2022. He was driving an SUV with eight passengers, and one of the officers believed that he was smuggling them, remarking that he was “hauling these people for money.”

Despite these brush-ups with the law and his wife filing for a protection order against him in 2020, Abrego Garcia was never charged with anything in the U.S. until the freshly announced indictment. 

A federal court judge in April issued an order saying the administration had to “facilitate and effectuate” Abrego Garcia’s return to the U.S., and the Supreme Court partially upheld that order days later, ordering the administration to “effectuate” his return. Despite acknowledging its error, the administration has refused – until Friday – to return Abrego Garcia to the United States, claiming it possessed ample evidence that he was a dangerous man and a “convicted member” of MS-13. 

Maryland Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen visited Abrego Garcia in prison in El Salvador in April, and several other Democratic lawmakers also previously traveled there to advocate for his return, arguing that he was denied due process and the Trump administration was flouting judicial orders.