Supreme Court Denied Appeal from Former Pennsylvania Judge
The high court refused to hear a case involving a judge suspended for partisan social media activity.
Updated on Oct. 5, 2026 in Law
Live Poll
Should judges be allowed to share partisan political opinions while serving on the bench?
The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal from Mark Cohen, a former Pennsylvania judge who was suspended in 2024 for posting partisan political content on Facebook. Cohen had challenged the disciplinary action on First Amendment grounds after losing his pension.
Why it matters
The case highlights the ongoing legal tension between the free speech rights of public officials and the requirement for judicial impartiality. The decision leaves in place a lower court ruling that allows states to restrict judges' partisan expression to protect the integrity of the bench.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld the suspension of Mark Cohen by applying a legal balancing test for government employee speech. This standard distinguishes between private and public interest speech in judicial conduct cases.
The players
Mark Cohen
He is a former Pennsylvania judge who previously served in the Pennsylvania legislature for forty years.
Pennsylvania Judicial Conduct Board
This is the state agency responsible for investigating and disciplining judges in Pennsylvania for ethical or misconduct violations.
Supreme Court of the United States
This is the highest federal court in the nation and the final arbiter of constitutional challenges.
The details
The Pennsylvania Judicial Conduct Board disciplined Cohen, characterizing his dozens of Facebook posts as partisan cheerleading. Despite his four decades of prior service in the state legislature, Cohen faced severe penalties, including the loss of his pensions following the suspension.
Timeline
The Pennsylvania Judicial Conduct Board suspended Mark Cohen in 2024.
The U.S. Supreme Court turned away the judicial appeal on October 5, 2026.
Political Context
This case follows the established legal framework of the Pickering balancing test, which weighs a government employee's right to free speech against the interest of the public employer. Critics argue that such broad standards can unfairly suppress the political participation of citizens who serve in judicial roles.
This decision reinforces the state's authority to enforce strict conduct standards for those holding public office in Pennsylvania. Residents can expect continued enforcement of ethics rules that limit public expressions of partisan political support by their sitting judges.
The takeaway
Public servants should remain aware that constitutional protections for speech often carry limitations when they conflict with professional duties and ethics codes. Judicial candidates and officials must navigate a landscape where personal expression is frequently held to a higher standard of neutrality.
Further reading
For more background on state judicial standards, visit the Law section.
Live Poll
Should judges be allowed to share partisan political opinions while serving on the bench?
