Two judges have been suspended for their social media posts as ethics committees continue to crack down on online content.
On October 7, the Pennsylvania Court of Judicial Discipline ruled that Judge Mark Cohen’s case was the worst case of defiance they had ever seen after he refused to stop posting political comments.
“No other case in the history of the Judicial Discipline Tribunal has involved such post-decision disregard,” the eight-judge panel ruled.
“People appearing before judges deserve to have fair and unprejudiced jurists weigh in on their cases,” they added.
Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Getty
The court referenced the previous case of Justice Michael Eakin, who resigned from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in 2016 after sharing sexually explicit jokes with friends and attorneys via email and text message.
However, he noted that Eakin never intended for the public to see the messages and apologized for his behavior. In contrast, Cohen refused to apologize and continued to post political messages.
The court suspended Cohen without pay until his judicial term ends at the end of the year. Because Cohen is 75, he will be barred from running for judge again.
Cohen, who sat on the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, posted mostly pro-Democratic comments online, even after the court ruled against him last May and warned him to immediately stop posting political comments online.
Throughout the process, Cohen insisted that his Facebook posts protected free speech. They covered everything from environmental protection to minimum wage.
The same week in New Jersey, Bergen County Superior Court Judge Gary Wilcox was suspended for three months for TikTok videos in which he lip-synched songs with “references to violence, sex and to misogyny,” according to an ethics complaint filed against him.
New Jersey Administrative Office of the Courts
In some videos, Wilcox is wearing his judicial robe and in others, he is in his courtroom. In some cases, he was only partially dressed while in bed, New Jersey Ethics Rules wrote in a complaint filed with the New Jersey Supreme Court.
The musicians he lip-synced with included Rihanna, Miguel and Busta Rhymes and he had previously been warned about his conduct.
“In the 11 videos posted by the respondent on TikTok, either the content – for example, including references to violence, sex and misogyny – the location – i.e. in the office, in the courthouse and in a bed – or the physical appearance of the respondent – for example, wearing his judicial robe and/or partially clothed while lying in bed – were inappropriate and brought discredit to those in power judicial,” says the ethics complaint.
News week On Thursday, we requested comment via email from Justices Cohen and Wilcox.
Former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani said News week that all judges are prohibited from making harmful or inappropriate comments online.
“Each state has its own codes of judicial ethics, many of which are based on the Model Rules of Judicial Conduct. They all prohibit judges from making prejudicial or otherwise inappropriate remarks. Racist or sexually harassing remarks would not be protected.” , he said.
Regarding Judge Cohen, he said the question is whether political or partisan remarks are protected by the First Amendment and is “more difficult to answer.”
Rahmani, now president of the West Coast Trial Lawyers law firm in California, said it depends on whether the judge is speaking in his capacity as an officer of the court or a private citizen.
“In Garcetti v. Ceballos, the Supreme Court ruled that government employees can be punished for statements made pursuant to their position as a public official,” he said. “In other words, there is no First Amendment protection for expressions made in the course of their professional obligations.
“Even if a judge acts as a private citizen, ethical rules can limit political speech if they promote the state’s interest in an independent and impartial judiciary and are no more restrictive than necessary.”
Stephen Gillers, a law professor at New York University, said News week that the rules of judicial ethics everywhere prohibit judges from engaging in public political activities.
“The judiciary is a nonpartisan, nonpolitical branch of government,” he said. “When a lawyer becomes a judge, he loses certain First Amendment rights that belong to private citizens. A separate set of rules is intended to encourage public confidence in courts and judges.”
Speaking of Wilcox, he said: “Judge Wilcox’s behavior, even after being warned, appears to have led the Judicial Ethics Commission to conclude that he had exceeded that limit and thereby threatened public confidence in the courts.”
