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. The appellate court just said doctors can be sued for reporting child abuse. The most dangerous form of child abuse with the highest mortality rate of any form of child abuse (between 6% and 9% according to the below listed studies). Now doctors will be far less likely to report this form of dangerous child abuse in Indiana. If you want to know what this is, google the names Lacey Spears, Julie Conley (and look at what happened when uninformed judges returned that child against medical advice), Hope Ybarra, and Dixie Blanchard. Here is some really good reporting on what this allegation was: http://media.star-telegram.com/Munchausenmoms/ Here are the two research papers: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0145213487900810 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213403000309 25% of sibling are dead in that second study. 25%!!! Unbelievable ruling. Chilling. Wrong.

  2. MELISA EVA VALUE INVESTMENT Greetings to you from Melisa Eva Value Investment. We offer Business and Personal loans, it is quick and easy and hence can be availed without any hassle. We do not ask for any collateral or guarantors while approving these loans and hence these loans require minimum documentation. We offer great and competitive interest rates of 2% which do not weigh you down too much. These loans have a comfortable pay-back period. Apply today by contacting us on E-mail: melisaeva9@gmail.com WE DO NOT ASK FOR AN UPFRONT FEE. BEWARE OF SCAMMERS AND ONLINE FRAUD.

  3. Mr. Levin says that the BMV engaged in misconduct--that the BMV (or, rather, someone in the BMV) knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged fees but did nothing to correct the situation. Such misconduct, whether engaged in by one individual or by a group, is called theft (defined as knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property's value or use). Theft is a crime in Indiana (as it still is in most of the civilized world). One wonders, then, why there have been no criminal prosecutions of BMV officials for this theft? Government misconduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. An individual who works for or oversees a government agency is responsible for the misconduct. In this instance, somebody (or somebodies) with the BMV, at some time, knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged. What's more, this person (or these people), even after having the error of their ways pointed out to them, did nothing to fix the problem. Instead, the overcharges continued. Thus, the taxpayers of Indiana are also on the hook for the millions of dollars in attorneys fees (for both sides; the BMV didn't see fit to avail itself of the services of a lawyer employed by the state government) that had to be spent in order to finally convince the BMV that stealing money from Indiana motorists was a bad thing. Given that the BMV official(s) responsible for this crime continued their misconduct, covered it up, and never did anything until the agency reached an agreeable settlement, it seems the statute of limitations for prosecuting these folks has not yet run. I hope our Attorney General is paying attention to this fiasco and is seriously considering prosecution. Indiana, the state that works . . . for thieves.

  4. I'm glad that attorney Carl Hayes, who represented the BMV in this case, is able to say that his client "is pleased to have resolved the issue". Everyone makes mistakes, even bureaucratic behemoths like Indiana's BMV. So to some extent we need to be forgiving of such mistakes. But when those mistakes are going to cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars to rectify (because neither plaintiff's counsel nor Mr. Hayes gave freely of their services, and the BMV, being a state-funded agency, relies on taxpayer dollars to pay these attorneys their fees), the agency doesn't have a right to feel "pleased to have resolved the issue". One is left wondering why the BMV feels so pleased with this resolution? The magnitude of the agency's overcharges might suggest to some that, perhaps, these errors were more than mere oversight. Could this be why the agency is so "pleased" with this resolution? Will Indiana motorists ever be assured that the culture of incompetence (if not worse) that the BMV seems to have fostered is no longer the status quo? Or will even more "overcharges" and lawsuits result? It's fairly obvious who is really "pleased to have resolved the issue", and it's not Indiana's taxpayers who are on the hook for the legal fees generated in these cases.

  5. From the article's fourth paragraph: "Her work underscores the blurry lines in Russia between the government and businesses . . ." Obviously, the author of this piece doesn't pay much attention to the "blurry lines" between government and businesses that exist in the United States. And I'm not talking only about Trump's alleged conflicts of interest. When lobbyists for major industries (pharmaceutical, petroleum, insurance, etc) have greater access to this country's elected representatives than do everyday individuals (i.e., voters), then I would say that the lines between government and business in the United States are just as blurry, if not more so, than in Russia.

ADVERTISEMENT