In a case that underscores the complex relationship between presidential power and individual rights, a former presidential confidant faces another legal setback.
According to CBS News, Michael Cohen's lawsuit against former President Donald Trump hit a definitive roadblock Monday when the Supreme Court rejected his attempt to revive legal action over alleged retaliation.
The lawsuit claimed Trump orchestrated Cohen's return to prison from home confinement in response to his plans to publish a tell-all book critical of the former president.
The decision maintains a lower court's ruling, which dismissed Cohen's case based on a 2022 Supreme Court precedent. This precedent significantly limited citizens' ability to pursue monetary damages from federal officials for constitutional violations.
Cohen's journey from Trump's trusted legal adviser to outspoken critic began in 2018 when he pleaded guilty to multiple felonies. During his guilty plea, he implicated Trump in a hush-money scheme designed to suppress potentially damaging information before the 2016 presidential election.
The legal saga continued as Cohen began serving his 36-month prison sentence in May 2019 at a federal correctional facility in New York. When the COVID-19 pandemic emerged, authorities granted him furlough for home confinement, during which he actively promoted his upcoming book on social media.
His home confinement took an unexpected turn during a July 2020 meeting with probation officers. When presented with a form prohibiting media engagement and social media activities, Cohen's refusal led to his immediate return to prison, where he allegedly spent 16 days in solitary confinement.
A federal district judge eventually ordered Cohen's release, determining that his return to custody represented clear retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights to publish and discuss his critical book about the president.
In December 2021, Cohen filed a comprehensive civil rights lawsuit targeting Trump, former Attorney General Bill Barr, and federal prison officials. The legal action sought damages for alleged violations of his First, Fourth, and Eighth Amendment rights. Cohen's legal team presented a compelling argument in their filing to the Supreme Court:
The possibility that the federal government has the power to retaliate against critics with imprisonment, without any consequence for or check against the officials engaged in such retaliation, is a chilling prospect. This court should not turn its eyes away from this profound breach of the contract between a government of limited powers and a free citizenry.
In an unusual alignment, both the Biden administration and Trump's legal team advocated for the rejection of Cohen's appeal. Trump's attorney, Alina Habba, argued forcefully against the suit, stating:
Among other things, it would upend the constitutional separation-of-powers, curtail the president's ability to effectively perform his duties, and destroy the very concept of presidential immunity.
The Solicitor General's office supported this position, suggesting that Congress, rather than the courts, should determine whether officials can face lawsuits over prisoner placement decisions.
The Supreme Court's decision carries significant weight for future cases involving presidential immunity and constitutional rights. It reinforces existing limitations on citizens' ability to seek damages from federal officials while raising questions about the balance between executive authority and individual rights.
This ruling not only impacts Cohen's personal legal battle but also establishes a precedent for similar cases involving presidential power and constitutional protections for federal inmates. The decision highlights the ongoing debate about the extent of presidential immunity and its implications for government accountability.
