ILNews

Rush named to Indiana Supreme Court

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A judge with a statewide reputation as a leader in juvenile justice was named Friday as Indiana’s 108th Supreme Court justice and the second woman to serve on the high court.

Tippecanoe Superior Judge Loretta Rush, 54, said she was thrilled to get the news that Gov. Mitch Daniels had selected her from a field of three finalists to replace retired Justice Frank Sullivan Jr.

“I hope your hearing has come back to your left ear,” Rush quipped to Daniels, who called Rush on Thursday to confirm that he had chosen to appoint her.

“I intend to work with the other four justices to build on our Supreme Court’s record of excellence, integrity and respect for the law,” Rush said in her official statement. She said that as a judge, she’s been “a beneficiary of the standard set by the Indiana Supreme Court.”

Indiana had been one of three states, along with Idaho and Iowa, without a woman on its Supreme Court, but Daniels said gender played a small role in his choice.

“As I’ve said on many, many previous occasions, quality comes first,” Daniels said. He called Rush’s years in private practice and on the bench stellar and said her background and judicial temperament made her stand out.

“I’m utterly convinced Indiana is making the best possible choice,” he said.

In addition to overseeing the Tippecanoe County court that deals with juvenile cases, Rush chairs the Indiana Juvenile Justice Improvement Committee that has worked to better and standardize child welfare practices. She also is the president of the 113-member Indiana Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.

“No one has been more respected in this area than Judge Rush,” Daniels said.

Rush accepted the appointment with her husband, James, and three of her four children beside her. “Having my family’s support is huge,” she said.

Rush said she believes in judicial restraint and cited the opinions of Antonin Scalia when asked about U.S. Supreme Court justices she respects. Daniels praised Rush for “respect for the meaning of words as they are written.”

With Daniels next year taking the helm at Purdue University, he chose in Rush a Boilermaker alum who worked her way through Indiana University Maurer School of Law.

Out of law school, Rush worked in private practice with fellow Purdue grad and Chief Justice Brent Dickson at Dickson Reiling Teder and Withered in Lafayette.

“I was a lawyer in Lafayette when our firm was privileged to hire Loretta to work for us,” Dickson said Friday. “She’s a product of Indiana education at its best. … She’s going to be a great addition to the court.”

Daniels said Rush indicated a hope and ambition to serve on the court for many years, which he said would be important to foster the court’s reputation for continuity.

Rush’s application to the Indiana Judicial Nominating Commission can be viewed on the court's website.

Rush will replace Sullivan, who retired from the court July 31 to teach at Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law. Since Sullivan’s retirement, the court has issued just one opinion.

When Rush will join the Supreme Court is uncertain. A formal robing ceremony has not been set. Rush said she must clear her active caseload in Tippecanoe County, and Dickson said the Supreme Court will appoint a temporary judge to fill in until Daniels names a replacement.

Rush will join Myra Selby as Indiana’s only other female justice. Selby served on the Supreme Court from 1995 to 1999.

Rush is Daniels’ third appointment to the five-member panel, having previously named justices Steven David to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Justice Ted Boehm and Mark Massa to succeed former Chief Justice Randall Shepard, who stepped down this year.

The other finalists were Hamilton Superior Judge Steve Nation and attorney Geoffrey Slaughter.


 

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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT