ILNews

Judge Pratt makes history in move to federal bench

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
LathropPratt

With approval from the U.S. Senate, Marion Superior Judge Tanya Walton Pratt is ready to make a historic move to the state’s federal court system.

Senators voted unanimously today to confirm Judge Pratt to the Southern District of Indiana, meaning she’ll be the state’s first African-American federal judge and one of four female jurists on Indiana's federal bench.

This completes a nomination process that began in January with an announcement from Indiana’s Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh and nomination by President Barack Obama, followed by unanimous approval from the Senate Judiciary Committee in March.

Senators started discussion about 11:35 a.m. on the nominations of Judge Pratt and two other judicial nominees, but they didn’t discuss or debate any of the nominees specifically and no one raised any concerns before the voting process started about 11:50 a.m. An official vote came at 12:13 p.m.

“This (process) has been a test of patience, but I'm so very happy and honored,” Judge Pratt said moments after the vote, which she watched online from her office in the City-County Building. “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.”

She succeeds Judge David F. Hamilton, who moved up to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals late last year. Judge Pratt starts her new position once the president signs her commission in the coming days, and she expects the transition to officially take effect by June 25. She expects logistical details and interviews with federal courtroom staff to happen soon.

The move means she’ll resign from Marion Superior Court, where she has presided over the Probate Division since December 2008. Before taking on that role, she served as a criminal division judge since 1997, handling major felonies and presiding over 20 to 35 jury trials a year. Judge Pratt was first elected in 1996, but had served as a master commissioner in Marion Superior Court since 1993 after practicing privately.

Once she transitions to the federal bench, Judge Pratt will join Judges Sarah Evans Barker and Jane Magnus-Stinson in the Southern District of Indiana and Judge Theresa Springmann in the Northern District of Indiana as the state’s only federal female jurists.

Her confirmation comes a day after the Southern District of Indiana administered the oath to Judge Magnus-Stinson, who was nominated at the same time in January and the Senate confirmed unanimously on June 7. She had served as a magistrate since early 2007, moving from the Marion Superior bench.

Gov. Mitch Daniels is responsible for choosing a successor for Judge Pratt on Marion Superior Court, and that process officially starts once the governor’s office receives her resignation letter, said general counsel David Pippen. He expects a 30-day application process for those interested in the judicial spot, and then interviews will be conducted. Pippen said an exact timeline for the entire process isn’t clear and depends on the number of applicants and overall scheduling, which also overlaps with the search for a new Indiana Supreme Court justice once interviews begin in early July.

Whoever is chosen will be of the same political party, Democrat, as Judge Pratt, and that person will fulfill the remainder of her term that runs through 2014.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  2. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  3. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  4. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT