James P. Sullivan
Republican | Texas
Candidate Profile*
Originalist
BIOGRAPHY
EDUCATION
Candidate did not provide
WORK & MILITARY
Candidate did not provide
AFFILIATIONS
Candidate did not provide
POLITICAL OFFICES HELD
Candidate did not provide
POLITICAL OFFICES SOUGHT
Candidate did not provide
ENDORSEMENTS*
CONSERVATIVE (5)
Texas Home School Coalition THSC PAC
Texas Values Action
Life PAC
*Texas Young Republicans
Texas College Republicans
LIBERAL (1)
Houston Police Officers Union PAC
OTHER (5)
Greg Abbott
Texas Oil and Gas Association TXOGA PAC
C Club of Houston
*Texas Association of Business TXBIZ PAC
Houston Region Business Coalition HRBC
SELECTED CONTRIBUTIONS
CONSERVATIVE
GIVEN BY CANDIDATE (1)
Local, County, District Republican Organizations (2025)
RECEIVED BY CANDIDATE (5)
Blakemore Public Affairs (2026)
Nathan Hecht (2026)
Republican Womens Organizations (2026)
Texas Civil Justice League (2026)
Texans For Responsible Government (2025)
LIBERAL
GIVEN BY CANDIDATE (0)
RECEIVED BY CANDIDATE (1)
Adam Loewy (2026)
OTHER INFORMATION
Candidate interivew. Texas Young Lawyers Association Young Gunners Podcast. 24 May 2025. 42:23 min.
In a 2026 interview with the Texas Public Policy Foundation, Sullivan discussed originalism and textualism, stating that if one practices textualism in a way that “is somehow anti-originalist,” then “you’re likely to get it wrong.” He emphasized that the power to change the law belongs to the people, not the courts, and that judges should not always expect to “like the outcomes you reach.”
In In re State of Texas (2026), Justice Sullivan concurred in the Texas Supreme Court’s decision denying petitions seeking to remove legislators who left Texas to break quorum during a redistricting special session. The Court held that the Texas Constitution gives the Legislature authority to compel absent members’ attendance and discipline its members, and declined to exercise judicial jurisdiction because the political dispute had already been resolved. Sullivan agreed with denying the petitions but separately addressed when courts could potentially intervene in a future quorum-breaking dispute.
In Gonzalez v. Texas Medical Board (2025), Justice Sullivan delivered the opinion of the Court, holding Gonzalez could continue his case against the Texas Medical Board. The Board had told Gonzalez that he could not use the titles “doctor” or “physician” in his political campaign. The Court ruled that Gonzalez’s claims could move forward because there were questions about whether the Board had the legal authority to restrict his speech. Sullivan explained that the Board would need to justify its authority to regulate Gonzalez’s use of those titles.
In Perez v. City of San Antonio (2025), Justice Sullivan dissented from the Texas Supreme Court’s decision interpreting Article I, § 6-a of the Texas Constitution, which prohibits governmental limitations on certain religious services. The Court held that the protection is absolute when applicable, but does not extend to government actions preserving and managing public lands. Sullivan argued that the Court should have declined to answer the certified question because it sought an advisory opinion on an abstract issue
In Noyes v. Voges (2026), Justice Sullivan concurred separately in the Texas Supreme Court’s decision vacating and remanding a case involving a lifetime firearm prohibition imposed through a protective order. The Court considered whether the firearm restriction complied with the Second Amendment and Texas Constitution’s Arms Clause following United States v. Rahimi. Sullivan emphasized that Rahimi involved temporary disarmament of an individual found to pose a credible threat, while Noyes faced lifetime disarmament without a comparable finding. He concluded that the historical record did not appear to support such a permanent firearm prohibition and expressed serious constitutional concerns about the statute’s application to Noyes.
QUESTIONNAIRE
RIGHT TO LIFE
Was Dobbs v. Jackson rightly decided according to the text of the Constitution? Please explain. (Holding: In Dobbs, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the federal constitution does not confer a right to abortion.)
Did not answer
Does the federal Constitution support the right to physician assisted suicide? Please explain in light of Washington v. Glucksberg (1997).
Did not answer
Human life deserves legal protection from conception until natural death.
Did not answer
How do you view the judiciary’s role in matters of abortion regulation following Dobbs?
Did not answer
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
Do you believe religious liberty is at risk in the United States. If so, what is the judiciary's proper role in addressing this issue?
Did not answer
Does the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment require government to be strictly secular or does it allow for the nation's religious heritage?
Did not answer
Was Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission rightly decided according to the text of the Constitution? Please explain. (Holding: The U.S. Supreme Court held tha the state may not show religious hostility when enforcing anti-discrimination laws against a business owner.)
Did not answer
VALUES
Briefly describe your spiritual beliefs and values.
Did not answer
What is your understanding of parental rights under the Constitution regarding the upbringing of children, particularly regarding choices about education and sexual identity?
Did not answer
Is gender identity a protected class under the Constitution? Please explain the constitutional basis for your view.
Did not answer
ABOUT YOU
Have you ever been convicted of a felony? If so, please explain.
Did not answer
Have you ever been penalized for sexual misconduct in either civil or criminal court? If so, please explain.
Did not answer
I voted in these primaries and general elections:
Did not answer
JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY
Describe your judicial philosophy.
Did not answer
Do you believe judges should primarily apply the law according to its original public meaning, or do you believe the law evolves over time to reflect contemporary values?
Did not answer
Which current or past U.S. Supreme Court justice best reflects your judicial philosophy?
Did not answer
Was Obergefell v. Hodges rightly decided according to the text of the Constitution? Please explain. (Holding: The U.S. Supreme Court held Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses create a right for same-sex couples to marry.)
Did not answer
A. How should a judge approach a case where the constitutional or statutory text is clear on its face? B. Conversely, how should a judge proceed when the text is ambiguous or silent on a disputed issue?
Did not answer
What is your view of judicial restraint versus judicial activism? How do you define each?
Did not answer
What is the proper role of a judge?
Did not answer
When applying or interpreting the text of a statute or constitutional provision, is it ever proper for a judge to consider present day public opinion or consequences?
Did not answer
If precedent departs from the Constitution’s text or original meaning, should a judge follow it or correct the error? Please explain.
Did not answer
2ND AMENDMENT
What is your understanding of the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms?
Did not answer
OTHER IMPORTANT ISSUES
Which branch of government do you believe was intended to wield the most authority?
Did not answer
