Supreme Court Rejects PA Judge’s Appeal Over Facebook Posts
Supreme Court declines to hear appeal of PA judge suspended for partisan Facebook posts.
1 min read
The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear the appeal of former Philadelphia Judge Mark B. Cohen, who was suspended for making hyper-partisan Facebook posts supporting Democratic figures and policies. The justices denied certiorari without comment, leaving Cohen’s suspension intact.
Partisan Posts Led to Suspension
Cohen, a long-time Democratic operative, used his public Facebook page—identifying him as a sitting judge—to cheer for Joe Biden, Gov. Josh Shapiro, and Democratic policies. Pennsylvania’s Judicial Conduct Board suspended him in 2024 over these posts, which were deemed ‘partisan cheerleading.’ The suspension was not a surprise, as Cohen continued posting despite warnings.
Legal and Ethical Boundaries
Justice Kevin Dougherty, writing for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, affirmed the suspension, stating that the state’s interest in an impartial judiciary outweighed Cohen’s right to political expression. The court referenced the legal standard set in Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, which applies to judicial candidates but not to sitting judges.
Appeal and Legal Arguments
Cohen’s lawyers argued that the First Amendment should protect his speech, but the Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected this, emphasizing that a judge’s role requires neutrality. The U.S. Supreme Court did not grant certiorari, with four votes required for the case to be heard. Cohen’s appeal was denied, reinforcing the legal boundaries for judges’ public speech.
Impact on Judicial Integrity
The case highlights the ongoing debate over judicial ethics and the appropriate use of public platforms by judges. Legal experts and the Judicial Conduct Board emphasized that judges must avoid using their positions for partisan advocacy, ensuring the judiciary remains seen as impartial and independent.
Source: The Gateway Pundit
