The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to rescue former Philadelphia Judge Mark B. Cohen from the punishment imposed over years of openly partisan Facebook posts.

Cohen spent more than four decades as a Democratic state lawmaker before joining the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas in 2018. Once on the bench, he kept using a public Facebook page that identified him as a judge to praise prominent Democrats and promote liberal policy positions.

The justices denied his petition without comment, leaving the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s ruling — and Cohen’s suspension — in place.

The immediate result was captured in this report on the Court’s refusal to take the case:

The U.S. Supreme Court docket shows that Cohen filed his petition in April after losing before Pennsylvania’s highest court. The justices requested a response from the state’s Judicial Conduct Board, received briefing from both sides, and then denied review after considering the case at conference.

ADVERTISEMENT

That matters because a denial of certiorari is not a fresh ruling on the merits. It means the justices chose not to hear Cohen’s challenge, allowing the state judgment against him to stand.

The underlying record is brutal.

Judicial authorities examined more than 60 Facebook posts. Cohen praised Joe Biden, supported Democratic policy priorities, promoted Gov. Josh Shapiro and Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner, pushed for a higher minimum wage and elective abortion rights, and highlighted his “F” rating from the National Rifle Association.

One current summary put Cohen’s political history and his praise of Biden side by side:

This was not a stray comment made in private. Cohen’s page was publicly accessible, identified his judicial role and displayed a photograph of him in his robes behind the bench.

He continued posting after judicial officials warned him about the appearance of partisan advocacy.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court concluded that the Commonwealth’s interest in preserving confidence in an independent and impartial judiciary outweighed Cohen’s interest in publicly advocating for the Democratic Party while serving as a judge.

Cohen’s lawyers argued that the restrictions should face the most demanding level of First Amendment review. The state court rejected that position and instead balanced his speech interests against the judiciary’s need to appear fair and politically neutral.

The Judicial Conduct Board described the posts as “partisan cheerleading” and defended the punishment as an ordinary application of longstanding rules judges across the country are expected to follow.

ADVERTISEMENT

Cohen’s petition also said the suspension triggered the loss of his judicial pension and his pension from decades of prior public service — a major personal consequence of the disciplinary action.

That part of the fallout drew a sharp reaction as the Supreme Court’s denial circulated:

Cohen wanted the nation’s highest court to turn his discipline into a sweeping First Amendment test. He did not get it.

The Pennsylvania ruling remains intact, and so does the basic lesson: a judge cannot wrap himself in the prestige of the bench while using a public platform as a megaphone for one political party and then act shocked when the judiciary enforces its own impartiality rules.

This is a Guest Post from our friends over at WLTReport. View the original article here.

 

Join The Conversation. Leave a Comment.