A Uniter, Not a Divider – Judge Prado’s Record as a Moderate, Independent Jurist
Judge Prado was nominated to the District Court by President Reagan and to the Circuit Court by President George W. Bush. Judge Prado is a Republican whose fair-minded, independent approach has won praise from all parts of the political spectrum.
In an era where there seems to be no end to partisan politics, Judge Prado would be a Supreme Court Justice who could be a trusted custodian of our Constitution. Throughout his more than twenty years as a federal judge, Ed Prado has shown a balanced approach in deciding cases. Below is a review of just a selection of Judge Prado’s rulings on a variety of subject matter.
Prior to becoming a federal judge, Prado served as an assistant district attorney, a federal public defender, and a United States Attorney. In short, Prado has wide experience on both sides for the criminal bar. During the 1990s, Chief Justice William Rehnquist selected Judge Prado to lead a committee, which later came to be known as the "Prado Commission," to examine the administration of the federal public defender service. The Prado Commission recommended greater independence for federal defenders and recommended that criminal defendants be given more opportunities to select among public defenders.
In a 1996 speech, Judge Prado also emphasized his concerns about the federal sentencing guidelines and his view that “mandatory minimum sentences are not being used uniformly… [and] do not serve a deterrent effect.”[1] While these remarks display Judge Prado’s concerns for the rights of the accused, he has also been a tough sentencer when the facts warrant it.
As a judge, Ed Prado has signaled basic ruling Roe v. Wade [2] should remain intact. In a 2004 case, McCorvey v. Hill [3], Judge Prado was part of Fifth Circuit panel that reviewed a suit by Norma McCorvey, the original Roe plaintiff, seeking to overturn the landmark decision. Judge Prado joined the panel and upheld the district court’s ruling that McCorvey’s challenge lacked standing and was moot. Notably, Judge Prado did not join a concurring opinion of Judge Edith Jones that while agreeing that McCorvery’s challenge could not move forward on procedural grounds suggested that the Roe was incorrectly decided. [4] From his ruling in McCorvey and his other rulings, Judge Prado appears to respect stare decisis and the precedents set forth by the Supreme Court in Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. [5]
In 2000, Judge Prado ruled in a case, GI Forum v. Texas Education Agency, [6] involving the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS), a test that Texas high school students are required to pass in order to finish high school. In his ruling Judge Prado agreed with the plaintiffs that the test had an adverse effect on the graduation rate of Hispanic and African-American students, but nonetheless upheld the constitutionality of the statute requiring the exam. Though Judge Prado did not find sufficient evidence that the exam violated students due process rights, he noted that courts must act "when a state uses its considerable power impermissibly to disadvantage minority students." [7] Judge Prado’s ruling in the case disappointed some civil rights advocates, but his opinion suggests a willingness to reach another result where evidence of prior educational discrimination is more pronounced. Judge Prado himself noted the difficulty in reaching his decision, describing the case as "probably the most challenging decision [he] had to make in fifteen years on the bench." [8]
Prado appears to be an independent voice in the debate about the devolutionary trend in the federalism jurisprudence of 1990s. In Koog v. United States, [9] Judge Prado considered whether the Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act, which required local law enforcement officials to comply with federal background checks, violated the Tenth Amendment state powers guarantee. Judge Prado upheld the provisions of the Act ruling that the Tenth Amendment does not “prevent the federal government from imposing minimal duties on state executive officers” [10]. Prado's decision was ultimately reversed on appeal by the Fifth Circuit and later the Supreme Court also struck down the background check provision of the Act in a 5-4 decision in Printz v. United States [11]. Still, Prado's decision suggests that he may have a more cautious, deferential approach to limiting the power of the Congress or the President.
In an era where there seems to be no end to partisan politics, Judge Prado would be a Supreme Court Justice who could be a trusted custodian of our Constitution. Throughout his more than twenty years as a federal judge, Ed Prado has shown a balanced approach in deciding cases. Below is a review of just a selection of Judge Prado’s rulings on a variety of subject matter.
Criminal Justice: Experience from both sides of criminal trials.
Prior to becoming a federal judge, Prado served as an assistant district attorney, a federal public defender, and a United States Attorney. In short, Prado has wide experience on both sides for the criminal bar. During the 1990s, Chief Justice William Rehnquist selected Judge Prado to lead a committee, which later came to be known as the "Prado Commission," to examine the administration of the federal public defender service. The Prado Commission recommended greater independence for federal defenders and recommended that criminal defendants be given more opportunities to select among public defenders.
In a 1996 speech, Judge Prado also emphasized his concerns about the federal sentencing guidelines and his view that “mandatory minimum sentences are not being used uniformly… [and] do not serve a deterrent effect.”[1] While these remarks display Judge Prado’s concerns for the rights of the accused, he has also been a tough sentencer when the facts warrant it.
The Right to Choose: Roe v. Wade is the law of the land.
As a judge, Ed Prado has signaled basic ruling Roe v. Wade [2] should remain intact. In a 2004 case, McCorvey v. Hill [3], Judge Prado was part of Fifth Circuit panel that reviewed a suit by Norma McCorvey, the original Roe plaintiff, seeking to overturn the landmark decision. Judge Prado joined the panel and upheld the district court’s ruling that McCorvey’s challenge lacked standing and was moot. Notably, Judge Prado did not join a concurring opinion of Judge Edith Jones that while agreeing that McCorvery’s challenge could not move forward on procedural grounds suggested that the Roe was incorrectly decided. [4] From his ruling in McCorvey and his other rulings, Judge Prado appears to respect stare decisis and the precedents set forth by the Supreme Court in Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. [5]
Education Access and Due Process: Upholding standards.
In 2000, Judge Prado ruled in a case, GI Forum v. Texas Education Agency, [6] involving the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS), a test that Texas high school students are required to pass in order to finish high school. In his ruling Judge Prado agreed with the plaintiffs that the test had an adverse effect on the graduation rate of Hispanic and African-American students, but nonetheless upheld the constitutionality of the statute requiring the exam. Though Judge Prado did not find sufficient evidence that the exam violated students due process rights, he noted that courts must act "when a state uses its considerable power impermissibly to disadvantage minority students." [7] Judge Prado’s ruling in the case disappointed some civil rights advocates, but his opinion suggests a willingness to reach another result where evidence of prior educational discrimination is more pronounced. Judge Prado himself noted the difficulty in reaching his decision, describing the case as "probably the most challenging decision [he] had to make in fifteen years on the bench." [8]
Federalism: An independent voice in the devolution debate
Prado appears to be an independent voice in the debate about the devolutionary trend in the federalism jurisprudence of 1990s. In Koog v. United States, [9] Judge Prado considered whether the Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act, which required local law enforcement officials to comply with federal background checks, violated the Tenth Amendment state powers guarantee. Judge Prado upheld the provisions of the Act ruling that the Tenth Amendment does not “prevent the federal government from imposing minimal duties on state executive officers” [10]. Prado's decision was ultimately reversed on appeal by the Fifth Circuit and later the Supreme Court also struck down the background check provision of the Act in a 5-4 decision in Printz v. United States [11]. Still, Prado's decision suggests that he may have a more cautious, deferential approach to limiting the power of the Congress or the President.
- National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, 20 Champion 16 (July, 1996); for more on Judge Prado's views on sentencing see also United States v. Bart, 973 F. Supp. 691 (W.D. Tex. 1997).
- 410 U.S. 113 (1973).
- 385 F.3d 846 (5th Cir. 2004)
- 385 F.3d at 850 (conc. Opn. of Jones, J.) (“although mootness dictates that Ms. McCorvey has no 'live' legal controversy, the serious and substantial evidence she offered could have generated an important debate over factual premises that underlay Roe.”)
- 505 U.S. 833 (1992).
- 87 F.Supp. 2d 667 (W.D. Tex. 2000).
- 87 F.Supp. 2d at 668.
- Janet Elliot, "Pass or Fail? Does the TAAS Test Unfairly Discriminate Against Minorities?," TEXAS LAWYER, Nov. 1, 1999 at pg. 1.
- 852 F.Supp. 1376 (W.D. Tex. 1994), rev'd, 79 F.3d 452 (5th Cir. 1996).
- 852 F.Supp at 1388.
- 521 U.S. 898 (1997).
