The Supreme Court turned away a former Pennsylvania Democratic judge who lost his seat and pensions after years of Facebook posts praising Joe Biden and party causes.
On Monday the high court declined without comment to hear the case of Mark Cohen, once a judge on the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. Cohen had been suspended after making dozens of politically charged Facebook posts while still on the bench, including open praise for Joe Biden and his agenda.
Fox News reported that the refusal leaves intact a state discipline ruling that treated the posts as clear partisan advocacy, not protected private speech. Cohen’s own petition said the suspension also triggered forfeiture of his judicial pension and earlier public-service pensions.
Judges are expected to stay neutral. Cohen’s record showed something else.
Cohen began serving on the Philadelphia court in 2018. He was already a former Democratic state lawmaker. While wearing the robe he kept posting.
In November 2021 he promoted Biden’s Build Back Better legislation and wrote that its passage would improve “many, many American lives.” A year later, on Biden’s birthday, he called the then-president “an excellent President” and said he looked forward to “many more achievements.”
Other posts pushed a higher minimum wage, opposed limits on elective abortions, and highlighted the “F” rating he had received from the National Rifle Association during his legislative years. The activity continued even after he was warned to stop.
Pennsylvania’s highest court concluded that the volume and tone of the posts made Cohen appear to be an advocate for the Democratic Party rather than an impartial judge. That finding drove the suspension.
Pennsylvania’s Judicial Conduct Board defended the discipline in blunt terms. The board told the Supreme Court there was no need to take the case because the social media activity amounted to partisan cheerleading.
The board described the suspension as a straightforward application of familiar rules that judges around the country have followed for decades. Cohen’s lawyers saw it differently and pressed a First Amendment claim all the way to the high court after filing the appeal in April.
One of those lawyers told Law.com the discipline rested on dangerous ground.
"Allowing judges to be disciplined based on the perceived ‘tone’ or ‘volume’ of lawful speech promotes arbitrary enforcement, invites political interference in the judicial branch, and threatens to undermine the rule of law."
The same counsel added a second warning about constitutional clarity.
"This case presents an urgent opportunity for the court to restore constitutional clarity and reestablish the First Amendment’s protection of the rights of sitting judges to speak on matters of public concern."
DLA Piper, the firm representing Cohen, did not respond Wednesday when asked for further comment. The Supreme Court simply denied the petition without explanation.
The Cohen episode lands while the Trump administration pushes harder on immigration enforcement and meets resistance in the courts. DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin told Fox News Digital that Biden-appointed judges are “almost impossible” to work with as those fights intensify.
Mullin’s complaint tracks a broader pattern: personnel chosen under one administration can slow or block the priorities of the next. Immigration dockets are only the most visible arena. When a trial judge treats the bench like a campaign account, public trust erodes faster.
Cohen’s case is state-level discipline, not a federal immigration ruling. Yet the principle is identical. A judge who cheers one party’s president and agenda in public cannot expect litigants to believe the courtroom is neutral.
Recent Supreme Court action on immigration policy has already shown how high-stakes those fights have become. Enforcement only works when the judges applying the law are seen as umpires, not players.
Cohen’s petition made the personal cost plain. Suspension did not merely remove him from the bench; it wiped out the retirement benefits tied to his judicial service and earlier public roles. That consequence is now final.
Taxpayers fund those pensions. They also fund the courts. When a judge turns the office into a Democratic messaging platform, the public has every right to demand removal and the financial follow-through that comes with it.
The same accountability focus has marked other Mullin-led scrutiny of immigration enforcement gaps and alleged fraud. Rules either bind everyone or they become suggestions.
Soft discipline for partisan conduct produces more of it. Hard consequences produce less.
Cohen kept posting after a warning. State authorities finally acted. The Supreme Court left that result undisturbed. Separately, pressure continues on federal immigration courts where ICE arrest policies and judicial resistance collide in real time.
A bench that picks sides in public is not a bench the public can trust. Pennsylvania applied an old rule. The high court saw no reason to rewrite it.
