Joshua Prince
Republican | Pennsylvania
Candidate Profile
Originalist
BIOGRAPHY
Name
Joshua Prince
Party
Republican
Election Year
2023
Election
Supreme Court Primary, HD108, HD163 Special
Race
Commonwealth Court
Incumbent
No
Links
EDUCATION
McGill University, Bachelor of Arts, 2005
Widener University of Law, Harrisburg, Juris Doctorate, 2009
WORK & MILITARY
Attorney at Prince Law Offices, P.C., 2009-present
Sole-Owner and Attorney at Civil Rights Defense Firm, P.C., 2016-present
AFFILIATIONS
Pottstown Police Athletic League, Past President , Secretary and Board Member, Firearm Owners Against Crime (FOAC)
Member, National Rifle Association (NRA), Benefactor and Charlton Heston Member
Gun Owners of America (GOA), Member, Second Amendment Foundation
POLITICAL OFFICES HELD
Candidate did not provide
POLITICAL OFFICES SOUGHT
Candidate did not provide
Race
ENDORSEMENTS
CONSERVATIVE (8)
Firearms Owners Against Crime
Pennsylvania Pro-life Federation PAC
Gun Owners of America Pennsylvania
Kathy Rapp
Berks County Republican Committee GOP
REPORTED BY CANDIDATE (10)
Pennsylvania Sheriff Association Action PA
Firearm Owners Against Crime
Gun Owners of America
PA Pro Life Federation
LifePAC
SELECTED CONTRIBUTIONS
CONSERVATIVE
GIVEN BY CANDIDATE (1)
Rick Saccone (2018)
RECEIVED BY CANDIDATE (0)
OTHER INFORMATION
Joshua (Josh) Prince (R) is the Sole-Owner and Attorney at the Civil Rights Defense Firm, P.C. and an associate at Prince Law Offices in Berks County, P.C. Prince has “litigated cases including civil liberties matters largely concentrating on second amendment protections, workers compensation claims, to mental health freedoms and challenges to the COVID state of emergency.”
The Pennsylvania Bar Association did not recommend Prince.
Controversial Issues
- Prince credits himself as the first attorney to challenge the Governor's COVID-19 lockdown calling it “disastrous.”
- Challenged fines businesses faced during the COVID-19 lockdown.
- Contested student mask requirement, stating that it has “seriously harmed our children.”
Judicial Philosophy
- “The judiciary is the citizens' last line of defense for their liberty and their rights to be upheld and vindicated. It is through that prism that I will apply the law as written and the Constitution as designed.”
- iVoterGuide Judicial Survey responses
- Question 1: Justices should not interpret the federal and state constitutions as living documents, but should use a textualist and originalist approach to interpretation.
- "Strongly agree. As evidenced by the inclusion of an amendment process in our federal and state constitutions, it was never the intent of our Founding Fathers for the respective constitutions to "live" or "breathe;" rather, the amendment process is the sole mechanism by which We the People - not the courts or respective legislative branches - can alter our constitutions.”
- Question 2: What is the proper use of legislative history in interpreting statutory law?
- "As the role of the judiciary is not to make the law, but only to interpret, where absolutely necessary, judges should confine their focus on the text of the statute.”
- Justice Clarence Thomas most reflects his judicial philosophy. [see question #3]
- Question 19: Why should the voters choose you?”
- “[I]t is imperative that we only elect those judicial candidates who understand and respect the three co-equal branches of the government and never seek to legislate from the bench.”
- Question 1: Justices should not interpret the federal and state constitutions as living documents, but should use a textualist and originalist approach to interpretation.
Notable Cases
For a more comprehensive list of cases see.
- Prince represented clients in John Doe 1, et al. v. Franklin County, et al where the court “establish[ed] that pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. §6111(i) that all license to carry firearms applicants' information is confidential and not subject to disclosure, including through the use of un-enveloped postcards.” The case resulted in Monroe County’s inability to enforce its “unlawful license to carry firearms requirements” and a $4 million class action settlement. Also see.
- Prince represented a client in Firearms Owners Against Crime, et al. v. City of Harrisburg, et al. where the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held “people can sue to challenge a city’s gun restrictions even if they have not been charged with violating them.” “At issue [were] local laws with criminal penalties for discharging a gun outside a gun range, possessing guns in parks, failing to report lost or stolen guns within two days or unaccompanied children having firearms outside their homes.” Justice Wecht stated “[w]e do not require plaintiffs to violate the law or regulations and subject themselves to sanction for engaging in protected conduct as the price of admission to the courthouse.”
- Prince filed suit against the Trump Administration in Guedes, et al. v. BATFE, et al. challenging the “Trump Administration’s new confiscatory ban on firearm parts, additionally challenging Matthew Whitaker’s legal authority to serve as Acting Attorney General and issue rules without being nominated to the role and confirmed by the Senate or by operation of law.” The new rule requires such devices to be turned over or destroyed within 90 days of the order or face “federal ‘machinegun’ charges that carry up to 10 years in prison and $250,000 in fines for each violation.”
- Prince sued Pennsylvania’s attorney general in Landmark Firearms LLC, et al. v. Col Robert Evanchick challenged a new state policy that “treats unassembled ‘ghost guns,’ gun frames also referred to as 80% receivers, as firearms.” The lawsuit states, “[o]vernight the lawful conduct that Pennsylvanians had engaged in was now criminal, subjecting Pennsylvanians to fines and potential incarceration depending on which applicable section their conduct now purportedly fit into.” The attorney General, Shapiro, said “the gun parts can be used to make gun replicas” and stated "[t]he police 'must weigh all the applicable factors together to determine whether a receiver "may be readily converted" to expel any projectile by the action of an explosive.'"
Notable Statements
- The following statements can be found by listening to the podcast linked on the homepage of his campaign website.
- “The constitution is truly what is most important to me.” [ 10:22 min.]
- If elected “I am going to have to likely issue decisions I do not agree with. There may be binding precedent and I will be bound to rule in that manner or it may just be a situation where . . . I would like the outcome to be the other way, but that is not what justice is about.” [see Podcast on homepage at 29 min.]
- Courts often do “interest balancing in relation to other constitutional rights” [24 min]. Prince argues there is no such language in the Constitution and hopes for reforms in this area.
- Discussed how the Founding Father never intended for Congress to always be in session. [21 min.]
- The media reached out to Joshua regarding an incident where the KKK had been told that they could not make certain statements. Joshua reflected on the conversation stating, “I loath what they stand for. Listen, it can't get worse. They think I am the worst thing alive (he is jewish) ust based on my religion, but . . . the Constitution guarantees them the ability to espouse those types of horrific statements and I will defend them, even if I do not agree with it because the Constitution is most important.” [30 min]
- Discussed the over politicization of judicial elections disagreeing with that aspect of the election. [33-34 min.]
- Said he worked to protect students due process rights [24 min.]
Joshua Prince completed the Pennsylvania Bar Association's Questionnaire.
Joshua Prince completed the PA Family Voter Survey.*
*Information received after the voter guide was published and was not considered in candidate evaluation.
Spotlight PA article (Scroll down to Joshua Prince.)
QUESTIONNAIRE
VALUES
I agree with Critical Race Theory (CRT) which asserts that the institutions in the United States are fundamentally racist.
Strongly Disagree
While the above answer aligns with my personal views, I give my assurances that I will keep an open mind and will carry out my judicial duties faithfully and impartially if elected, without regards to my personal views.
Judeo-Christian values established a framework of morality that is necessary for our system of limited government.
Strongly Agree
While the above answer aligns with my personal views, I give my assurances that I will keep an open mind and will carry out my judicial duties faithfully and impartially if elected, without regards to my personal views.
Briefly describe your spiritual beliefs and values.
As a practicing member of the Jewish faith, I personally believe that faith plays a large role in the development and sustenance of character, integrity, and morality.
What types of pro bono work have you done?
I have done a lot of pro-bono work; probably more than any other attorney, who doesn't work for a pro-bono department in a large law firm. I have handled, pro-bono, everything from civil rights deprivations to protection from abuse and custody matters for women who were the victims of domestic violence. I typically put in several hundred hours of pro-bono service every year.
ABOUT YOU
Have you ever been convicted of a felony or been penalized in either civil or criminal court for sexual misconduct? If so, please explain.
No
What education or experience qualifies you to hold the office for which you seek election?
Over the past 13 years, I have handled the gamut of civil and criminal matters, including everything from general civil (including landlord/tenant), to family law, to right to know law, to workers compensation and social security disability law, to mental health law, to zoning law, to election law, to administrative law, to constitutional law, to class actions, and the list goes on. Unlike other candidates, I have experience - absent bankruptcy, state tax law, and admiralty law - in almost every area of the law that exists in Pennsylvania, including having handled 4 class actions, of which, I have already been successful in 3 of them and tentative settlement terms were reached on April 11th in relation to the fourth (John Doe, et al., v. City of Philadelphia, et al., docket no. 121203785; A.R., et al., v. City of Philadelphia, et al., docket no. 151201740; John Doe 1, et al. v. Monroe County, et al., docket no. 2015-cv-6384; and John Doe 1, et al. v. Franklin County, et al., docket no. 2014-cv-4623). Perhaps more importantly, the majority of my experience is in areas of the law covered by the Commonwealth Court. I respectfully submit to you that I have handled more areas of law than almost any other attorney seeking a judicial vacancy and my experience also includes federal court litigation, inclusive of general civil rights litigation, which tends to be a niche area of practice. In relation to the Pennsylvania state appellate courts, I’ve litigated over 45 cases. Focusing my experience, solely in relation to Commonwealth Court and just over the past 4 years, you will see that I have or am in the process of litigating 10 cases (Pennsylvania State Police v. Sama, M., 1026 CD 2018; Firearm Owners, et al v. City Hbg, et al, 1434 CD 2018; Firearm Owners Against Crime v City of Pgh, et al, 1754 CD 2019; Allegh Cty Sportsmen League et al v. City of Pgh, 1810 CD 2019; Landmark Firearms LLC et al v. Colonel Evanchick, 694 MD 2019; Armstrong, R. v. City of Phila., et al, 1204 CD 2020; Doe 1, J., et al v. Franklin Co., et al, 96 CD 2021; Fick, N. v. PSP, 51 MD 2022; Firearms Owners, et al v. Evanchick, R., et al, 218 MD 2022; Firearm Owners Against Crime et al. v. Shapiro, J., 478 MD 2022). As I am sure you know, for a non-government and non-appellate-only attorney, that is an extremely high number of cases to have litigated before any appellate court. Of those 10 cases, I have already been successful in 8; which, statistically, is virtually unheard of for an attorney, especially one, who is frequently representing the Petitioner/Plaintiff or Appellant. And, I would respectfully submit to you, if an attorney has been that successful before the Commonwealth Court, he or she must have the depth and breadth of experience to warrant such results and to sit on that court. Moreover, I have been successful in arguing a number of cases of first impression (e.g. Cmwlth v. Hicks, 652 Pa. 353 (2019); Fick, N. v. PSP, 51 MD 2022; Firearms Owners, et al v. Evanchick, R., et al, 218 MD 2022; Cmwlth v. Goslin, 2017 PA Super 38, 1 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017); Doe v. Franklin Cnty., 139 A.3d 296 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2016)(see also, the second appeal, Doe 1 v. Franklin Cnty., 272 A.3d 1022, 1026 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2022)). While I can cite to a number of additional cases of first impression, where the appellate courts have ruled consistent with the arguments that I have made, I believe these already sufficiently reflect that I not only have the requisite depth and breadth of experience, but that my arguments are grounded in the law and, as a result, adopted by the courts. However, even if you disagree with me, I would respectfully ask that you review my Amicus brief in Cmwlth v. Hicks, 56 MAP 2017, as well as the Public Defender’s Brief for Mr. Hicks and the PA Supreme Court’s majority opinion. If you take the time to compare the arguments I made in the Amicus brief to those not made in Mr. Hicks’ brief but ultimately included in the PA Supreme Court’s decision, I believe you will see that I clearly have the depth of legal experience, grounded in the law as written, necessary to sit on the Commonwealth Court.
Why should the voters choose you?
As an experienced litigator, in both the trial and appellate courts in Pennsylvania, who will only ever uphold the law as written and the constitutions as intended and whose arguments have been affirmed on countless occasions by the appellate courts, I have shown that like any decisions I would render as a judge, my arguments are grounded in the law and not in politics. In this vein, it is imperative that we only elect those judicial candidates who understand and respect the three co-equal branches of government and never seek to legislate from the bench.
I voted in these primaries and general elections:
2012 Republican Primary 2012 General Election 2014 Republican Primary 2014 General Election 2016 Republican Primary 2016 General Election 2018 Republican Primary 2018 General Election 2020 Republican Primary 2020 General Election
JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY
Justices should not interpret the federal and state constitutions as living documents, but should use a textualist and originalist approach to interpretation.
Strongly Agree
As evidenced by the inclusion of an amendment process in our federal and state constitutions, it was never the intent of our Founding Fathers for the respective constitutions to "live" or "breathe;" rather, the amendment process is the sole mechanism by which We The People - not the courts or respective legislative branches - can alter our constitutions.
What is the proper use of legislative history in interpreting statutory law?
As the role of the judiciary is not to make the law, but only to interpret, where absolutely necessary, judges should confine their focus on the text of the statute.
Which current or past U.S. Supreme Court justice best reflects your judicial philosophy?
Justice Clarence Thomas
How should a court address the balance between public health and individual freedoms in the time of a pandemic?
While I give my assurances that I will keep an open mind and will carry out my judicial duties faithfully and impartially if elected, without regards to my personal views, individual liberty must always prevail and I was at the tip of the spear in fighting the COVID mandates, including being successful in not only getting law firms re-opened and defending small business, like Taste of Sicily, but also in providing legal advice to school boards and school officials on how to respond to the pressure placed upon them by the Wolf Administration in relation to the forced masking and vaccinating of our children, as these issues were for parents, not school boards and officials, to be deciding.
In light of the case Bostock v. Clayton County, in which the U.S. Supreme Court interpreted the 1964 Civil Rights Act to include a prohibition on sexual-orientation discrimination, which justice’s opinion most closely aligns with your own opinion?
Justice Alito's, which was joined by Justice Thomas
What role (if any) does a judge have in maintaining the separation of church and state?
While I give my assurances that I will keep an open mind and will carry out my judicial duties faithfully and impartially if elected, without regards to my personal views, the U.S. Constitution only states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" and my personal view is that if anything more was intended than reflected in the text of the First Amendment, then it is for We the People, through the amendment process, to change it.
Religious liberty is at risk in the United States and deserves the highest level of protection in the law.
Strongly Agree
While the above answer aligns with my personal views, I give my assurances that I will keep an open mind and will carry out my judicial duties faithfully and impartially if elected, without regards to my personal views.
When should a judge overturn past court decisions?
As litigants and the legal community must be able to rely on precedent to understand their rights and obligations, it is imperative that precedent only be overturned where a manifest justice has occurred and necessitates correction, such as the abhorrent decision in the Dred Scott case, and not where the overturning of precedent would be for political or other reasons. Where appropriate, the criteria I would consider are the quality of the reasoning for the past decision, consistency of the the existing precedent with related decisions, legal developments since the past decision that shed new light on the existing precedent and what is the reasonable implementation of the new precedent within the legal system and its impact moving forward.
How should a judge determine which rights are protected by the Constitution even though they are not specifically mentioned?
The Constitution says what it says and doesn't say, what it doesn't say. It is for We The People - not the courts or legislative bodies - to amend it, if there are rights and protections we wish to add.
What legal principles should a court consider when evaluating parents’ objection to their child obtaining medical procedures or drugs designed to affirm the child’s desired gender?
As set forth in a legion of precedent, including from the US Supreme Court, in relation to parental rights, such decisions are those of the parents.
What principles should guide a court’s analysis of whether your state’s constitution gives terminally ill patients a right to assisted suicide?
The explicit text of the constitution.
Would you describe your judicial philosophy as originalist, living constitutionalist, or something else?
Originalist
