Though judges run for office as members of a particular political party, once seated on the bench, they are expected to assume a stance of impartiality to fairly carry out justice.

The Supreme Court Wednesday ruled on a case that questioned whether that stance of impartiality must extend to judges’ social media accounts and other public expression.

The case centers around Judge Mark B. Cohen, a former Democratic member of the Pennsylvania House. The Philadelphia lawmaker was removed from his position on the bench following partisan posts on his social media account. Cohen contended that the posts were protected under his First Amendment rights.

The justices employed a “balancing test” measuring the judge’s individual rights against the interests of the judiciary. The commonwealth’s interests, they wrote, are “protecting the efficiency of the administration of justice, including the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, against the judge’s interest in making the statement.”

Affirming the suspension, the opinion written by Justice Kevin Dougherty reads, “Here, we hold the Commonwealth’s interests in preserving the judiciary’s reputation for impartiality outweighed Judge Cohen’s interests, as a sitting judge who was not a candidate for judicial office, in publicly advocating for the Democratic Party on Facebook and espousing his partisan political views.”

That determination was a majority opinion with a concurring opinion from Justice David Wecht who noted that listing accomplishments in previous public offices would not be inappropriate alone.

The matter was first brought to the court’s attention through an “unfounded” citizen complaint that one of Cohen’s posts was racist. Nevertheless, Cohen’s often political posts caught the interest of Judge Margaret T. Murphy, then-Administrative Judge of the Family Division.

Cohen’s posts made his role on the bench clear, including an image of himself in robes. Other posts supported particular political figures, including President Joe Biden, Gov. Josh Shapiro, Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner, and other state lawmakers. One post celebrated Cohen’s “F” rating from the National Rifle Association during his time in the General Assembly.

Cohen argued that his posts were intended to comment on “issues which were being discussed widely in the media at the time.” The justices wrote that they “cast him as little more than a spokesperson for the Democratic Party.”

If appealed, the case could go to the Supreme Court of the United States. If upheld, it provides a framework for future cases in Pennsylvania. The ruling demands that first and foremost, the court must determine if a judge’s speech “addressed a matter of public concern.”

“If the answer is yes, then the court must balance the Commonwealth’s interest in protecting the efficiency of the administration of justice, including the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, against the judge’s interest in making the statement,” reads the opinion. “If, however, the answer is no, then the Commonwealth has wide latitude in managing the judiciary, without intrusive oversight in the name of the First Amendment.”