ILNews

Judge Sarah Evans Barker to take senior status

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

After 30 years on the federal bench, Judge Sarah Evans Barker of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana has announced her intention to take senior status effective June 30, 2014.

“It has been and continues to be an extraordinary privilege to serve as a federal judge in our Southern District,” Barker said. “I have been the beneficiary of valuable, selfless guidance and support from many wonderful, highly talented colleagues, law clerks, court staff and lawyers, and most of all from my beloved husband, Ken, and our family.”

Barker joined the court March 31, 1984, having been appointed by President Ronald Reagan with the support of Indiana Sens. Richard Lugar and Dan Quayle. She was the first woman appointed to the federal court in Indiana, filling the vacancy created by the death of Cale J. Holder.

During her tenure, Barker has held numerous appointments including serving as chief judge from 1994 to 2001, serving on the Judicial Conference of the United States and being appointed by U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist to the Special Study Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability, known as the Breyer Committee.

Also from 2007 to 2009, she served a two-year term as president of the 900-plus member Federal Judges Association, composed of Article III judges from across the country.

Chief Judge Richard L. Young remarked on behalf of the Court, “Judge Barker has long been a trailblazer in the legal community, from her initial appointment as the first woman Assistant United States Attorney, followed by becoming the first woman Federal Judge in Indiana, continuing to her current role as a member of the Court. In her thirty years as a district judge, she has bridged two judicial generations and provided valuable leadership and guidance to the bench and bar. We are very grateful for her continued service to the Court and the citizens of the Southern District of Indiana.”

Judge Barker will continue to carry a full caseload until a successor is appointed by President Barack Obama with the guidance of Indiana Sens. Joe Donnelly and Dan Coats. When her successor is appointed, Barker expects to cut back her caseload to 80 percent of a full draw.


 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT