The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed disciplinary measures against Philadelphia County Judge Mark B. Cohen for engaging in partisan political commentary on social media, establishing new standards for judicial conduct in the digital age.
The court's decision, issued Jan. 21, 2026, addressed an appeal from a Court of Judicial Discipline order entered Oct. 7, 2024. The case arose from Cohen's social media activities that the disciplinary court found violated judicial conduct standards.
Justice David N. Wecht, writing in a concurring opinion, emphasized the unique obligations judges face regarding speech. "A person who chooses to become a judge must park some portion of his or her First Amendment rights at the courthouse curb for the duration in which that judge is serving on the bench," Wecht wrote.
The justice noted that upon retirement or resignation, judges regain their full First Amendment rights and "can then rejoin the madding crowd as much and as boisterously as the jurist wishes."
Cohen, who serves on the Court of Common Pleas for Philadelphia County's 1st Judicial District, had engaged in what Justice Wecht described as "partisan punditry and running online commentary on politics" through his social media posts.
The case highlights the challenges judges face in navigating social media while maintaining judicial neutrality and public confidence in the courts. Justice Wecht observed that "in an age of ubiquitous social media and heightened acrimony, it is imperative that jurists remain mindful and careful."
The court distinguished this case from previous decisions addressing speech rights of judicial candidates. Pennsylvania judges must participate in retention elections every 10 years, unlike their federal counterparts who serve during good behavior.
"Pennsylvania judges, unlike their federal colleagues and their colleagues in many states, must climb down from the ivory tower and engage in the hurly burly of electoral campaigning every decade," Justice Wecht wrote. He acknowledged that while these retention campaigns "may strike some as unseemly," they are constitutionally mandated.
The justice noted that if Pennsylvania citizens want to change the judicial selection process, "they are free to alter their Constitution," but until such changes occur, judges must navigate the dual requirements of electoral accountability and judicial impartiality.
The disciplinary action against Cohen represents part of a broader national conversation about judges' use of social media and public commentary. Courts across the country have grappled with similar issues as digital platforms become increasingly central to public discourse.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision provides guidance for other judges in the commonwealth about the boundaries of acceptable speech while serving on the bench. The ruling emphasizes that judicial service requires temporary sacrifices of certain constitutional rights in service of maintaining public trust in the judicial system.
Justice Wecht's concurring opinion praised the majority's analysis, stating it "thoroughly and astutely addresses the issues in this case and articulates an appropriate standard for weighing claims involving judges' speech."
The case underscores the ongoing tension between judges' rights as citizens and their responsibilities as neutral arbiters of the law. While private citizens enjoy broad First Amendment protections for political speech, judges face heightened scrutiny and restrictions designed to preserve judicial independence and impartiality.
The Court of Judicial Discipline's original order addressed Cohen's conduct under Pennsylvania's judicial ethics rules, which require judges to avoid activities that could undermine public confidence in the judiciary or create appearances of bias.
The timing of the decision, coming amid increasingly polarized political discourse and widespread social media use, reflects the courts' recognition that traditional ethical guidelines must evolve to address modern communication challenges.
For Cohen, the disciplinary action serves as a reminder of the unique constraints that come with judicial office. While the specific sanctions were not detailed in the available portions of the decision, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's affirmation sends a clear message about expectations for judicial conduct online.
The ruling may influence how other state courts approach similar cases involving judges' social media use and political commentary. As digital platforms continue to shape public discourse, courts nationwide are likely to reference Pennsylvania's approach in developing their own standards for judicial speech in the social media age.
The decision reinforces that while judges retain many constitutional rights, their role as impartial arbiters requires accepting certain limitations on political expression during their tenure on the bench.