Here are just a few examples of specific cases where Judge Pratter has dismissed the claims of civil rights plaintiffs and stifled advocacy by plaintiffs' attorneys. Moreover, she has grounded these decisions in questionable – or, as the Third Circuit has held in at least two of these cases, wrong – interpretations of law and fact.

• In Phillips v. Sheraton Society Hill, Judge Pratter dismissed an unrepresented plaintiff's disability discrimination complaint based on his failure to make certain legally necessary allegations, without first offering him a chance to supplement his complaint. The Third Circuit reversed, stating it was "troubled" by Judge Pratter's decision, which went against circuit precedent.
  
  
• In Taliaferro v. Darby Twp. Zoning Board, Judge Pratter denied plaintiffs the right to file a civil rights lawsuit alleging that a local zoning board had sought to keep the local African-American population low. She reasoned that the plaintiffs had not shown they suffered damage from the board's conduct. The Third Circuit reversed her decision, noting that the plaintiffs clearly possessed the right to sue because they had alleged they were harmed by the board's conduct. 
  
  
• In Disabled in Action v. SEPTA, Judge Pratter narrowly construed a statute of limitations to block a challenge to an Americans with Disabilities Act challenge to a subway station's lack of access for people with disabilities. In the pending appeal of this decision, the current Department of Justice has filed a brief sharply disputing her cramped interpretation of the statute of limitations.