Staff Reports
The U.S. Supreme Court quietly declined to take up former Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Mark B. Cohen’s appeal. That means the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision to uphold his suspension for partisan Facebook posts stands. The high court’s silent “no” leaves a big question about judges and political speech unanswered — and that matters to every American who wants a fair court and a free speech floor.
What the Supreme Court did — and didn’t do
The Supreme Court denied Cohen’s petition for review, so the Pennsylvania suspension remains in place. The lower courts found dozens of social posts where Cohen praised Democratic officeholders and attacked conservatives. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court said his steady stream of partisan posts “cast him as little more than a spokesperson for the Democratic Party.” The Court of Judicial Discipline suspended him without pay for the rest of his term.
Why this denial matters
The real fight here is legal test versus legal test. Pennsylvania adopted a balancing test for sitting judges’ off‑duty speech that weighs the state’s interest in an impartial judiciary against a judge’s free‑speech interest. Other courts use stricter or different rules. Cohen asked the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve that split. The Supreme Court’s refusal to act leaves different rules in different states — and leaves judges and lawyers guessing.
Free speech, impartial courts, and the conservative view
No one sensible wants judges shouting their party lines from the bench. Judges must be neutral in court. But judges are also citizens with First Amendment rights when off duty. The problem with the Pennsylvania test is how easily it can be used to punish political expression. If a judge posts opinions about public leaders repeatedly, that’s one thing. But if courts can suspend judges for unpopular views, that chills speech and hands the power to a small group of officials to decide what political speech is allowed.
What comes next — and who should pay attention
For now, Pennsylvania lawyers and judges will live under the balancing test. Elsewhere, rules will differ. The national split stays on the books because the Supreme Court punted. That means another case could force the high court to clarify the line between judicial discipline and First Amendment rights. Conservatives who care about free speech and about stopping activist judges should watch for similar discipline cases in other states.
The bottom line: the Supreme Court’s denial left the question open and left Cohen’s suspension intact. Folks who want clear, consistent rules for judicial speech deserve better than patchwork law and a half‑hearted pass from the nation’s highest court. If we want judges who are fair and citizens who can speak freely, the balance needs a firm rule — not silence and shrugging from on high.
