Order No. 25S-MS-151: Another Example of Judicial Patronage at the Indiana Supreme Court?

Hoosier Enquirer Opinion

Judge Catherine Stafford, INDIANA'S NEWEST LEGAL SCHOLAR, who grew up in Bloomington, was elected to the bench in 2018, taking office on January 1, 2019. The Monroe County Board of Judges, which includes nine judges and one commissioner, is a Unified Circuit Court. Judge Stafford’s docket includes family law, protection orders, small claims, ordinance violations, and miscellaneous cases. She has served on the Family Law Taskforce and worked with former Judge Benckart and Judge Krothe and community nonprofits to create the Housing Eviction Prevention Project (HEPP), offering mediation and legal representation to parties in eviction hearings. She also is an active participant in the Monroe County Domestic Violence Taskforce and a frequent speaker with groups such as the United Way/PACE roundtable, CASA, Bloomington Police Department, and the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts – Indiana Chapter. She also organizes CLEs for the local bar on such topics as Evictions & Damages in the COVID era, Intimate Partner Violence in Family Court, and presents often at the Monroe County Bench Bar Conference. In her spare time, Judge Stafford enjoys building, remodeling, knitting, hiking, and camping with her three kids. (PHOTO IS HER OWN POSTED FEATURED PHOTO ON HER OWN FACEBOOK PAGE.)

On April 25, 2025, the Indiana Supreme Court issued Order No. 25S-MS-151, reappointing and appointing members to the Indiana Coalition for Court Access. Among the changes was the replacement of Wayne Superior Court Judge Charles K. Todd, Jr., a judge originally appointed by Republican Governor Mitch Daniels, with Monroe County Circuit Judge Catherine Stafford, a democrat, educated at Minnesota Univeristy School of Law.

On its face, this appears to be a routine administrative matter.

But to many observers of Indiana's judiciary, the order raises a larger and increasingly uncomfortable question: Is Chief Justice Loretta Rush continuing to reward ideological allies and expand the influence of supporters who share her judicial philosophy?

Judge Stafford is widely respected and undoubtedly qualified. This article is not a criticism of her personally. Rather, it concerns what many critics perceive as a continuing pattern under the Rush Court.

For years, Indiana's judicial leadership has increasingly relied on commissions, committees, task forces, and coalitions staffed by a relatively small circle of judges, academics, legal-aid advocates, and members of the organized bar. Critics contend these appointments often come from the same professional and ideological circles.

Order 25S-MS-151 may therefore be viewed as another example of what some critics describe as the continued consolidation of influence among those aligned with the Chief Justice's vision of judicial administration.

Monroe County is one of Indiana's most politically progressive jurisdictions. Judge Stafford's background includes legal-aid and public-interest work. Judge Todd, by contrast, served in eastern Indiana and was appointed by Governor Mitch Daniels.

Again, no one is suggesting political affiliation should determine appointments. However, many Hoosiers may legitimately ask whether ideological diversity and geographic representation are receiving sufficient consideration.

Critics of the current judicial administration have long argued that Indiana's judiciary increasingly favors appointments that reflect modern judicial priorities such as diversity initiatives, expanded access-to-justice programs, and administrative reforms, while voices from rural counties, small-town practitioners, conservative legal circles, and ordinary litigants appear less represented.

The result, critics say, is a form of judicial patronage—not in the traditional partisan sense, but in the sense that appointments often seem to go to individuals who are philosophically aligned with the leadership of the Court.

Indeed, some may view Order 25S-MS-151 as another step in what they characterize as the continued expansion of a judicial establishment increasingly influenced by diversity, equity, and inclusion philosophies and access-to-justice advocacy organizations.

Whether one agrees with those initiatives or not, there are legitimate questions:

Why do so many appointments come from the same legal and geographic circles?

Why are more rural judges and practitioners not represented?

What objective metrics demonstrate that these committees are solving Indiana's continuing access-to-justice problems?

Are committee appointments becoming a means of rewarding loyalty and promoting preferred policy perspectives?

Will this move actually do anything to improve Hoosier's Access to Justice.

These questions become even more important when Indiana continues to face attorney shortages, growing numbers of self-represented litigants, and declining public confidence in institutions generally.

The Indiana Supreme Court has every legal right to make these appointments.

But the public also has every right to ask whether the Court's numerous committees increasingly reflect a narrow judicial establishment rather than the broad diversity of thought and experience found throughout Indiana.

Administrative orders often tell us far more than their brief wording suggests.

Order No. 25S-MS-151 may ultimately be remembered not for who was appointed, but for the larger debate it reignites: whether Indiana's judiciary is becoming increasingly centralized, ideological, and reliant upon a network of recurring appointees and supporters.

That is a debate worth having.

This article constitutes opinion and commentary regarding judicial administration and does not allege misconduct by any individual judge or justice. STILL HE DEMANDS LORETTA RUSH, "THE WORLD TRAVELING INDIANA CHIEF JUSTICE," RESIGN.