Pennsylvania Supreme Court Upholds Suspension of Judge Over Partisan Social Media Posts
A recent ruling by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has set a new standard in the commonwealth, limiting the online speech of sitting judges unless they are running for retention. The court upheld the suspension of Philadelphia Family Court Judge Mark B. Cohen, who made dozens of partisan social media posts that violated state judicial conduct rules.
Cohen's Facebook posts included his views on former U.S. Rep. Liz Cheney and Gov. Josh Shapiro's election, as well as his own legislative achievements as a Democrat. The court found that while Cohen had the right to free speech, his posts detracted from the reputation of the judiciary when he adopted the persona of a political party spokesperson.
The court drew on a federal appeals case in Wisconsin, where a judge challenged the state's Code of Judicial Conduct barring him from identifying himself as an "active member of the Democratic party" and endorsing other partisan candidates. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court applied a balancing test to determine whether Cohen's speech was limited by the state's interest in protecting the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary.
The court found that Cohen's regular postings on his Facebook page, which identified himself as a Democrat and touted his legislative achievements as a Democrat, crossed the line from expressing his opinions to advancing the party's interests. The ruling also noted that Cohen's identification of himself as a judge in pictures and text on his page further eroded the public's perception of impartiality.
The decision sets a precedent for judges' speech outside the context of their own political campaigns, which is generally protected under the First Amendment. However, the court emphasized that sitting judges have a responsibility to maintain the integrity and independence of the judiciary, and that their online speech must be balanced against this interest.
The case has sparked debate about the limits of free speech for public officials, including judges. While some argue that Cohen's speech was protected under the First Amendment, others see the court's ruling as necessary to protect the reputation of the judiciary.
As one lawyer noted, "It's very important for a judge to have the right to be involved in issues that don't come before them or their colleagues." However, the court's decision underscores the importance of balancing this right with the need to maintain the integrity and independence of the judiciary.
A recent ruling by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has set a new standard in the commonwealth, limiting the online speech of sitting judges unless they are running for retention. The court upheld the suspension of Philadelphia Family Court Judge Mark B. Cohen, who made dozens of partisan social media posts that violated state judicial conduct rules.
Cohen's Facebook posts included his views on former U.S. Rep. Liz Cheney and Gov. Josh Shapiro's election, as well as his own legislative achievements as a Democrat. The court found that while Cohen had the right to free speech, his posts detracted from the reputation of the judiciary when he adopted the persona of a political party spokesperson.
The court drew on a federal appeals case in Wisconsin, where a judge challenged the state's Code of Judicial Conduct barring him from identifying himself as an "active member of the Democratic party" and endorsing other partisan candidates. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court applied a balancing test to determine whether Cohen's speech was limited by the state's interest in protecting the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary.
The court found that Cohen's regular postings on his Facebook page, which identified himself as a Democrat and touted his legislative achievements as a Democrat, crossed the line from expressing his opinions to advancing the party's interests. The ruling also noted that Cohen's identification of himself as a judge in pictures and text on his page further eroded the public's perception of impartiality.
The decision sets a precedent for judges' speech outside the context of their own political campaigns, which is generally protected under the First Amendment. However, the court emphasized that sitting judges have a responsibility to maintain the integrity and independence of the judiciary, and that their online speech must be balanced against this interest.
The case has sparked debate about the limits of free speech for public officials, including judges. While some argue that Cohen's speech was protected under the First Amendment, others see the court's ruling as necessary to protect the reputation of the judiciary.
As one lawyer noted, "It's very important for a judge to have the right to be involved in issues that don't come before them or their colleagues." However, the court's decision underscores the importance of balancing this right with the need to maintain the integrity and independence of the judiciary.
. It's not exactly hard to imagine how his partisan rants would impact the public's perception of impartiality - like, hello, you're a judge, not a Twitter troll 
. The whole thing just feels like common sense: no online persona should be more prominent than your actual job title. And let's be real, if judges are gonna engage in partisan politics, it's gonna be super hard to maintain the trust of the public 
.
... on one hand, you gotta respect a judge's right to express themselves online - I mean, it's not like they're doing anything wrong just 'cause they're a Democrat 
It's all about balance, right? You don't wanna stifle free speech but you also need to make sure the judiciary isn't being used as a platform for some judge to spout off party talking points 
.
I mean, I get that judges are supposed to be impartial, but come on, a little bit of politics isn't gonna hurt anyone. And what's with the balancing test? How do you even weigh one against the other? 
It feels like they're just fishing for an excuse to control the narrative.
That's not how democracy works. And what about all the other public officials who have strong opinions but aren't politicians? Should they be silenced too?
. I mean, who wants to see a judge out here spewing party lines on Facebook? It's not about freedom of speech, it's about maintaining integrity in the court system. Like, how are people supposed to take a judge seriously when they're clearly affiliated with one party or the other? 