Judicial oversight panels are increasingly investigating and prosecuting judges for improper social media use. Our blog previously covered the judicial misconduct charges filed against Nevada Judge Erika Ballou for engaging in extrajudicial activity that would appear to a reasonable person to undermine the judge’s independence, integrity, or impartiality. Our blog also reported on the Canadian Judicial Council’s publication of the Guidelines on the Use of Social Media by Federally Appointed Judges.
Two more judges recently found themselves in hot water for their social media usage. On October 7, 2024, the Pennsylvania Court of Judicial Discipline suspended state court Judge Mark B. Cohen without pay for continuing to post political content on Facebook, even after a disciplinary decision finding that his conduct violated the judicial ethics rules. See In re Judge Mark B. Cohen, No. 1-JD-23, Pa. Ct. Jud. Discipline (Oct. 7, 2024).
Similarly, the Supreme Court of New Jersey recently suspended Judge Gary Wilcox for posting 40 (now deleted) videos on a public TikTok account under the pseudonym “Sal Torterella.” See In re Wilcox, No. 089766, D-13 September Term 2024 (N.J. Oct. 7, 2024). The Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct alleged that Judge Wilcox brought disrepute to the judiciary with videos that contained violent, sexual, or misogynistic content, or that showed Wilcox around the courthouse. For example, one video showed Wilcox partially dressed in judicial robes while lying on a bed. Another video showed words on the screen while Judge Wilcox smiled at the camera, while sexually explicit lyrics from the Busta Rhymes song “Touch It” played in the background.
There are many reasons why individuals chose to engage in posting information publicly on social media platforms. Some of the common reasons why people post include social connection, professional motivations, self-expression and information sharing. Many judges want to engage in posting on social media for those same reasons. Judges, however, must remain cognizant of how their public postings reflect on the judge’s independence, integrity, or impartiality.
