The Supreme Court closed the door on a former judge’s career fight. This decision comes after years of partisan posts by the official. The case involved Mark Cohen, a former Pennsylvania judge. He served on the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas starting in 2018. Cohen was suspended for posting political content on Facebook. He did this repeatedly while still holding the bench. The Supreme Court declined to hear his appeal on Monday. They denied the petition without any comment. This means the lower court’s ruling stands. Cohen’s career as a judge is effectively over. His pension benefits are also at risk.
Cohen was a former Democratic state lawmaker before becoming a judge. He made dozens of politically charged posts on social media. He continued this behavior even after being warned to stop. His lawyers argued that his First Amendment rights were violated. They told Law.com that the case threatened the rule of law. They claimed the discipline was based on tone and volume. They said this invites political interference in the judicial branch. They wanted the Supreme Court to restore constitutional clarity. They argued sitting judges should speak on public matters.
The Pennsylvania Judicial Conduct Board disagreed with this view. They argued the Supreme Court did not need to hear the case. They said Cohen’s activity was simple partisan cheerleading. They stated the suspension followed familiar rules for judges. These rules have been used by judges for decades. Pennsylvania’s highest court looked at the volume of posts. They concluded the tone made Cohen look like an advocate. He appeared to support the Democratic Party explicitly.
Specific posts show the nature of his social media activity. In November 2021, Cohen promoted Biden’s Build Back Better plan. He said its passage would improve many American lives. A year later, he posted on Biden’s birthday. He called the former president excellent on that day. He looked forward to many more achievements from the administration. Cohen also took specific policy positions in his posts. He supported higher minimum wage laws in one instance. He argued against restrictions on elective abortions in another. He even highlighted his record on gun policy publicly. He noted he received an F rating from the NRA. This happened while he served in the state legislature.
The consequences for Cohen are severe and financial. His Supreme Court petition mentions a loss of benefits. The suspension triggered the forfeiture of his judicial pension. It also affects his prior public-service pension. DLA Piper represents Cohen in this legal battle. The law firm did not respond to requests for comment. Fox News Digital asked them for a statement on Wednesday. No response was provided to clarify the current legal strategy. The Supreme Court’s silence is a clear message. It suggests judges must remain neutral in public view. Partisan cheering is not protected speech for officials. The money trail here ends with lost retirement funds. Cohen paid a high price for his online advocacy. The court system prioritized neutrality over free speech claims. This sets a boundary for future judicial conduct.