ILNews

2 new judges on federal court make history

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

History has been written within the state’s legal community, thanks to a pair of new federal judges who within days of each other joined the Southern District of Indiana.

Their confirmations doubled the state’s number of female federal judges, shifted the District’s makeup so that a majority of the judges are women, and gave Indiana its first ever African-American on either of the two U.S. District courts here.

Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson was confirmed June 7, moving from the magistrate judge spot she’d held for just more than three years. A day after she took her oath, her colleague Marion Superior Judge Tanya Walton Pratt received an identical Article III judgeship on the same court.
 

walton pratt magnus stinson Judge Tanya Walton Pratt, left, and Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson (IL Photo/ Perry Reichanadter)

The two came from similar spots on the state trial court bench, though the path to the federal bench materialized in different ways. Their journey began during the past year as two positions opened in the court that covers the southern two-thirds of the state. They now share the experience of joining Judge Sarah Evans Barker in the Southern District and Judge Theresa Springmann in the Northern District as the only females in the Hoosier federal court system.

“Their coming to the court is so special and new, but it’s been a long time coming,” said Judge Barker, who became the state’s first female federal judge in 1984. “It matters so much that the bench is diverse, and in rapid order we’ve gone to being a majority on the court after many years of being a distinct minority.”

Adding to the excellent qualifications that’s already allowed both the new judges to hit the ground running, Judge Barker reflected on the gender diversity aspect and said she feels like former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor did when welcoming Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the Supreme Court.

“You may not be able to tell any difference in work product or whether an opinion is written by a man or woman judge, but this will enhance the quality of justice and makes it deeper and broader and even more credible,” she said.

Both Judges Pratt and Magnus-Stinson recognize the historical significance of their appointments, and they credit the joint leadership of Indiana’s Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh and Republican Sen. Richard Lugar for working together to find qualified, inclusive nominees.

After their nomination announcements in January – along with attorney Jon DeGuilio for the Northern District of Indiana – both Judges Pratt and Magnus-Stinson worked their way through a confirmation process they describe as interesting and fair. Senators confirmed DeGuilio in May.

“This (process) has been a test of patience, but I’m so very happy and honored,” Judge Pratt said. “I do respect the historic significance of being the first African-American in the state to join the federal bench, and that’s really a credit to Sen. Bayh for looking outside the traditional group of candidates to be inclusive.”

On the bench

Judge Pratt succeeds Judge David F. Hamilton, who was elevated to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals late last year. She leaves the Marion Superior Court, where she has presided over the Probate Division since December 2008. Before then, she served as a criminal division judge since 1997, handling major felonies and presiding over 20 to 35 jury trials a year, as well as supervising the juvenile detention center. Judge Pratt was first elected in 1996, but she had served as a master commissioner in Marion Superior Court since 1993 after practicing privately.

The president signed her commission the same day as the vote, and after submitting a resignation letter to the Indiana Supreme Court she expects to officially begin in the federal system June 25.

Judge Magnus-Stinson is there to guide her friend and colleague, who’s making the same kind of move from state to federal court that she experienced in early 2007 when she took over for retiring Magistrate Judge V. Sue Shields. Prior to that, Judge Magnus-Stinson had served for 12 years on the Marion Superior bench. She worked in the 1990s as chief legal counsel for then-Gov. Evan Bayh. She also had practiced civil litigation at LewisWagner following graduation from Indiana University School of Law – Indianapolis in 1983.

Now, Judge Magnus-Stinson succeeds Judge Larry McKinney who took senior status last summer. She started her judicial duties June 14 with plea agreement hearings and a jury trial within a week.

“There are differences, but that’s what makes this job so exciting,” Judge Magnus-Stinson said about the state and federal systems. “You get to keep your curiosity up, and you’re always learning a new area or issue of law. You never know what’s next.”

Both plan to attend a new judge school in Texas at the end of June. Once that happens they’ll be ready to jump full force into their respective dockets on which they’re already working.

The two hope their appointments will serve as examples to the community – that diversity is important and won’t keep anyone from their dreams as long as they work hard.

“You have to have those distinguished role models … so you can see others work hard and do it, and know that you can, too,” Judge Pratt said. She echoed Judge Magnus-Stinson who said one of the best parts of all this has been to see the pride in their daughters’ eyes about their mother’s accomplishments. “Any little girl can do it.”

Filling those vacancies

Now the process begins to fill their vacated posts. A merit selection committee will narrow the candidates and recommend potential magistrates, while Gov. Mitch Daniels is responsible for choosing Judge Pratt’s successor. That process has officially started, and the governor’s general counsel David Pippen expects a 30-day application window through mid-July for those interested in the judicial post. Interviews will follow, but Pippen said an exact timeline isn’t clear and depends on the number of applicants and overall scheduling. It likely will overlap with the search for a new Indiana Supreme Court justice for which interviews are slated to begin in early July.

Whoever is chosen will be of the same political party – Democrat – as Judge Pratt, in order to balance the total 36 Superior Court judges between both parties. Her successor will fulfill the remainder of her term that runs through 2014.•
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT