Josh has practiced before the state and federal courts including the U.S. Supreme Court, and he is a member of the bar in Maryland and Pennsylvania.  His advocacy includes dozens of cases argued before Pennsylvania appellate courts most often the Commonwealth Court on which he wishes to serve. He 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 states of emergency.  Just a few examples of his successful cases are listed below:

  • Firearm Owners Against Crime, et al. v. City of Pittsburgh, et al., 276 A.3d 878 (Cmwlth. Ct. 2022) – Obtaining declaratory relief, striking down all three ordinances and signage erected by the City of Pittsburgh, which regulated firearms and ammunition, including, inter alia, a ban on “assault rifles,” “high capacity magazines,” and an extreme risk protection order provision.
  • Firearm Owners Against Crime, et al. v. City of Harrisburg, et al., 218 A.3d 497 (Cmwlth. 2019), and aff’d, 261 A.3d 467 (Pa. 2021) – Establishing that an individual can bring a challenge to the constitutionality or lawfulness of a law or ordinance under the Declaratory Judgment Act in the absence of being prosecuted for a violation or declaring that they violated the law or ordinance.
  • Commonwealth v. Hicks, 652 Pa. 353 (2019) – After drafting an Amici Curiae brief on behalf of a number of members of the General Assembly and several Second Amendment organizations, obtained a decision from the PA Supreme Court that the mere open or concealed carry of a firearm is not reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, where the Court utilized a significant portion of the Amici brief to support its decision
  • Landmark Firearms LLC, et al. v. Col. Robert Evanchick, 694 M.D. 2019 (Cmwlth Ct. 2019) – Obtaining a preliminary injunction enjoining the Pennsylvania State Police’s from implementing and enforcing its “partially manufactured frames and receivers” policy, which was based upon Attorney General Josh Shapiro’s Legal Opinion of December 16, 2019.
  • Haron v. Pennsylvania State Police, 171 A.3d 344 (Cmwlth. 2017), aff’d, 647 Pa. 197 (2018) – Establishing the (believed) first ever financial judgment against the Pennsylvania State Police – affirmed by the PA Supreme Court – for a violation of the Criminal History Record Information Act.
  • Commonwealth v. Goslin, 2017 PA Super 38 (en banc) – Establishing that an individual in entitled to the defense found within 18 Pa.C.S. § 912(c), if he/she is in lawful possession of a weapon on school grounds, provided that it is possessed for a lawful purpose.
  • Andrew Dissinger v. Manheim Township School District, 72 A.3d 723 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) – Represented Mr. Dissinger in an action regarding violations of his due process rights, which the Commonwealth Court confirmed. Thereafter, represented Mr. Dissinger in a federal civil rights deprivation action, 5:14-cv-2741 in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, which resulted in a settlement.
  • John Doe 1, et al. v. Franklin County, et al., 139 A.3d 296 (Cmwlth. Ct. 2016) – Establishing that pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. § 6111(i) that all license to carry firearms applicant information is confidential and not subject to disclosure, including through the use of un-enveloped postcards.

And, as we mentioned, he’s also successfully litigated major cases in the federal courts, including:

  • Miller v. Sessions, 356 F.Supp.3d 472 (E.D. Pa. 2019) – Establishing relief under a Second Amendment as-applied challenge to a conviction for forging a PennDOT window tint exemption form. The court held 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)’s prohibition, in perpetuity, was unconstitutional as applied.
  • Alton Franklin v. Sessions, et al., 291 F.Supp.3d 705 (W.D. Pa. 2017) and Wilborn v. Barr, et al., 401 F.Supp.3d 501 (E.D. Pa. 2019) – Establishing that a 302 evaluation under Pennsylvania’s Mental Health and Procedures Act does not trigger a federal prohibition under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4), due to the lack of due process provided.
  • Michael Keyes, et al., v. Lynch, et al., 195 F.Supp.3d 702 (M.D. Pa. 2016) and 282 F.Supp.3d 858 (M.D. Pa. 2017) – Establishing the first ever right to relief under a Second Amendment as-applied challenge to a single-isolated involuntary mental health commitment. The court held that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4)’s prohibition, in perpetuity, was unconstitutional as applied