Article I, Section 7
In re Cohen, 349 A.3d 865, per Dougherty, J., the Supreme Court upheld the suspension of Judge Mark B. Cohen for his continued partisan social media posts following his appointment to the bench. The Court concluded that the free speech rights of judges are subject to a balancing test under the First Amendment, in which the free speech rights of the judge are weighed against the Commonwealth’s interest in maintaining the efficiency, independence, and impartiality of the judiciary. Notably, this balancing test does not apply to judges’ rhetoric within the context of their own elections. Ultimately, the Court found against Judge Cohen, ruling that the Commonwealth’s interests outweighed Cohen’s interest in making partisan social media posts. The Court acknowledges that the First Amendment and Article I, § 7 are coterminous in this context.
Article I, Section 21
Firearm Owners Against Crime-Institute for Legislative Legal, and Education Action v. City of Harrisburg, __A.3d__, 2026 WL 111109 (Pa. Commw. Ct.), per Wolf, J., in the context of pre-enforcement standing to challenge certain provisions of the Harrisburg City Code that restricted the possession and use of a firearm within the city, the Commonwealth Court reaffirmed that the traditional standing test applies when plaintiffs seek pre-enforcement review of legislation. The appellants showed a “substantial, direct, and immediate interest in the outcome of the litigation,” thus permitting them to seek pre-enforcement of legislation that affected their right under Article I, § 21 right to bear arms. The Court reversed the holding of the trial court and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Article V, Section 10
Hernandez v. Zook, __A.3d__, 2026 WL 32563 (Pa. Super. Ct.), per Kunselman, J., the Superior Court addressed an appeal from a defamation suit stemming from emails accusing Hernandez of various illegal activities, including elder abuse and involvement in organized crime. Zook filed an untimely motion to dismiss under Pennsylvania’s Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA), an anti-SLAPP law designed to protect individuals from meritless lawsuits on public issues. While the court denied the motion to dismiss for procedural issues, the court also indicated that UPEPA may be unconstitutional under Article V, § 10(c). Although it did not address the constitutional issue, the court highlighted that statutes that conflict with the Pennsylvania Rules of Court are invalid under Article V, § 10(c).
Misc.
Bell v. Wilkinsburg School District, 349 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2026), per J. Dougherty, the Court held that the Charter School Law (CSL) required a school district to provide students at public charter schools free transportation but did not mandate that the district afford the same mode of transportation for all students. Because the Court determined the language of the CSL to be clear and unambiguous and the constitutional issue was waived, it did not address the appellants claims that the ruling may result in unequal treatment among similarly situated students. Justice Mundy’s dissent advocates for such equal treatment.