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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  2. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

  3. This law is troubling in two respects: First, why wasn't the law reviewed "with the intention of getting all the facts surrounding the legislation and its actual impact on the marketplace" BEFORE it was passed and signed? Seems a bit backwards to me (even acknowledging that this is the Indiana state legislature we're talking about. Second, what is it with the laws in this state that seem to create artificial monopolies in various industries? Besides this one, the other law that comes to mind is the legislation that governed the granting of licenses to firms that wanted to set up craft distilleries. The licensing was limited to only those entities that were already in the craft beer brewing business. Republicans in this state talk a big game when it comes to being "business friendly". They're friendly alright . . . to certain businesses.

  4. Gretchen, Asia, Roberto, Tonia, Shannon, Cheri, Nicholas, Sondra, Carey, Laura ... my heart breaks for you, reaching out in a forum in which you are ignored by a professional suffering through both compassion fatigue and the love of filthy lucre. Most if not all of you seek a warm blooded Hoosier attorney unafraid to take on the government and plead that government officials have acted unconstitutionally to try to save a family and/or rescue children in need and/or press individual rights against the Leviathan state. I know an attorney from Kansas who has taken such cases across the country, arguing before half of the federal courts of appeal and presenting cases to the US S.Ct. numerous times seeking cert. Unfortunately, due to his zeal for the constitutional rights of peasants and willingness to confront powerful government bureaucrats seemingly violating the same ... he was denied character and fitness certification to join the Indiana bar, even after he was cleared to sit for, and passed, both the bar exam and ethics exam. And was even admitted to the Indiana federal bar! NOW KNOW THIS .... you will face headwinds and difficulties in locating a zealously motivated Hoosier attorney to face off against powerful government agents who violate the constitution, for those who do so tend to end up as marginalized as Paul Odgen, who was driven from the profession. So beware, many are mere expensive lapdogs, the kind of breed who will gladly take a large retainer, but then fail to press against the status quo and powers that be when told to heel to. It is a common belief among some in Indiana that those attorneys who truly fight the power and rigorously confront corruption often end up, actually or metaphorically, in real life or at least as to their careers, as dead as the late, great Gary Welch. All of that said, I wish you the very best in finding a Hoosier attorney with a fighting spirit to press your rights as far as you can, for you do have rights against government actors, no matter what said actors may tell you otherwise. Attorneys outside the elitist camp are often better fighters that those owing the powers that be for their salaries, corner offices and end of year bonuses. So do not be afraid to retain a green horn or unconnected lawyer, many of them are fine men and woman who are yet untainted by the "unique" Hoosier system.

  5. I am not the John below. He is a journalist and talk show host who knows me through my years working in Kansas government. I did no ask John to post the note below ...

ADVERTISEMENT