“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.by Biden
Trump Seventh Circuit judge Michael Brennan cast the deciding vote to throw out a prisoner’s complaint that a disciplinary board improperly forced him to pay “up to $100,000” in restitution to the prison despite lack of specific evidence to support that figure. Brennan joined a July 2025 opinion by Biden nominee Doris Pryor in Wilson v Castaneda, to which Biden nominee Candace Jackson-Akiwumi dissented.
What happened in this case?
Malcolm Wilson, who is incarcerated at an Indiana state prison, was being chased by another prisoner who was trying to stab him. He snatched a cane from a third prisoner in order to defend himself, which caused the third prisoner to fall to the ground. Other prisoners deescalated the situation, but the third prisoner had to be taken to an outside hospital for medical care.
The prison charged Wilson with battery and held a disciplinary hearing. The presiding staff member found him guilty, and required him to spend 90 days in restrictive housing, forfeit some internal credits, and pay “up to $100,000” in restitution concerning the outside medical care to the third prisoner. There was no specific evidence presented concerning the outside medical costs.
After exhausting remedies at the prison, Wilson filed a federal lawsuit on his own against the prison staff member who imposed the punishment against him. Among other claims, he complained that the restitution order was imposed “without any evidence to support” the amount of the sanction. The district court dismissed the case, and Wilson appealed to the Seventh Circuit, which appointed counsel to handle the case.
How did Trump judge Brennan and the Seventh Circuit majority rule and why is the result harmful?
Trump Judge Brennan joined a 2-1 opinion affirming the decision below and rejecting Wilson’s appeal. The majority noted that a “lenient standard” of “some evidence” is applied to prison disciplinary proceedings. Under that standard, the majority ruled, it was enough that there was some evidence of Wilson’s guilt and that the prison incurred some costs for the outside medical care, even though there was no evidence to support the “up to $100,000” amount.
Judge Akiwumi-Jackson firmly dissented. Based on past precedent, she maintained, there must be “evidence tied to the ‘actual or estimated losses arising from’” the prisoner’s misconduct, which did not exist in this case. Otherwise, she pointed out, the decision may well “grant prisons a blank check for any restitution amount imposed at a disciplinary hearing.”
The decision made possible by Trump judge Brennan’s vote obviously harms Malcolm Wilson, as well as other prisoners who face restitution orders as disciplinary sanctions, especially in the Seventh Circuit, which includes Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin. It also illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.