Pennsylvania Supreme Court Addresses Judges’ Free Speech
Recently, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court weighed in on the free speech rights of judges in a significant ruling tied to a case from 2024.
This case involves former Judge Mark B. Cohen, a Democrat, who was suspended from his role on the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas by the Judicial Discipline Court in October 2024 due to political posts he made on Facebook.
In a quoted statement, the court remarked, “When, as in this case, a sitting judge adopts the persona of a political party spokesperson and abuses the prestige of his office to advance that party’s interests, he damages the reputation of the entire judiciary.”
According to reports, Cohen’s posts included commentary on various political matters, such as his opinions on former Rep. Liz Cheney, the attack on Nancy Pelosi’s husband, and the election of Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, among other topics.
The court’s opinion highlights the numerous political issues Cohen addressed on social media, illustrating his partisanship. It was noted that “Judge Cohen advocated for legislation such as the Build Back Better Act, which Democrats were promoting at the time, endorsed Democratic politicians, and criticized Republican Congress policies.”
Additionally, Cohen previously served as a Democratic Pennsylvania state representative from 1974 to 2016 before being elected to the civil court in 2018.
Six out of the seven justices supported the opinion, although Judge Vecht did express an opposing view, emphasizing that legal scholars with political backgrounds should certainly be able to reference their past actions and accomplishments.
The seventh Justice, McCaffrey, recused from this case entirely.
While the court recognized that judges are indeed well-positioned to express their views on certain matters, it took issue with the sheer volume and tone of Cohen’s postings. Justice Dougherty stated, “Judge Cohen therefore not only risked his own reputation. When, as in this case, a sitting judge adopts the persona of a political party spokesperson and abuses the prestige of his office to advance that party’s interests, he damages the reputation of the entire judiciary.”
The court confirmed that the concerns raised were valid, stating that Cohen appeared to be a “defender of the Democratic Party” through his disproportionate and public political statements.
Ultimately, the court concluded that the federal interest in maintaining the judicial process’s efficiency outweighed Cohen’s right to share political content on social media. His posts were deemed to present him merely as a representative of the Democratic Party.
Cohen’s attorney, Samuel Stretton, revealed that his client is contemplating an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that judges should engage in matters beyond their direct cases.
Previous documents indicated that Cohen, at 77, was suspended without pay from October 2024 until the end of that year, following which he was mandated to resign due to his age. The status of his benefits remains uncertain as his attorney has appealed the suspension of his medical coverage.
