The Supreme Court declined Monday to hear an appeal from former Pennsylvania Judge Mark Cohen, ending a years-long legal battle over whether his partisan social media activity violated judicial conduct rules. Cohen, a former Democratic state lawmaker who served on the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, was suspended after repeatedly posting political content on Facebook, including praise for former President Joe Biden. The high court’s denial was issued without comment.
Cohen’s suspension resulted in the forfeiture of his judicial and prior public-service pensions. His case centered on whether disciplinary action for the volume and tone of online speech constitutes a violation of the First Amendment. Pennsylvania’s Judicial Conduct Board maintained that Cohen’s posts amounted to partisan advocacy rather than protected speech on matters of public concern.
What the Right Is Saying
Pennsylvania’s Judicial Conduct Board argued that the Supreme Court did not need to intervene because Cohen’s social media activity constituted partisan cheerleading rather than neutral judicial commentary. The board stated that the suspension reflected a straightforward application of familiar rules that judges across the country have followed for decades to maintain impartiality.
State courts concluded that the volume and tone of Cohen’s posts made him appear to be an advocate for the Democratic Party. Specific examples cited included a November 2021 post praising the Build Back Better legislation and a subsequent birthday message calling President Biden an excellent president. The judicial conduct authorities maintained that these actions violated ethical standards requiring judges to avoid appearing biased.
What the Left Is Saying
Cohen’s legal team, represented by DLA Piper, argued that the disciplinary action infringed upon his constitutional rights. In filings leading up to the Supreme Court’s decision, his lawyer stated that allowing judges to be disciplined based on the perceived tone or volume of lawful speech promotes arbitrary enforcement. The attorney argued that such standards invite political interference in the judicial branch and threaten the rule of law.
The defense contended that Cohen’s posts, which included support for specific policy positions like higher minimum wages and abortion rights, were protected speech. His lawyer described the case as an urgent opportunity for the court to restore constitutional clarity regarding the rights of sitting judges to speak on matters of public concern.
What the Numbers Show
Cohen began serving on the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas in 2018. His Facebook activity included dozens of politically charged posts, some of which occurred after he was warned by judicial authorities to stop. The disciplinary action resulted in the forfeiture of his pensions, a significant financial consequence noted in his Supreme Court petition. The National Rifle Association had previously given Cohen an F rating during his time in the state legislature, a record he highlighted in his online posts.
The Bottom Line
The Supreme Court’s denial leaves the Pennsylvania court’s decision intact, reinforcing the precedent that judges may face disciplinary action for partisan social media activity. The case highlights the ongoing tension between First Amendment protections and judicial ethics codes designed to ensure impartiality. With the high court declining to review the matter, state judicial conduct boards retain the authority to enforce restrictions on political speech by sitting judges without further federal scrutiny in this instance.