Former President Donald Trump's ex-lawyer, Michael Cohen, has taken his case to the Supreme Court.
According to a Newsweek report, Cohen is seeking damages from Trump and other federal officials for allegedly conspiring to keep him incarcerated as retribution for writing a memoir critical of the former president.
The petition, filed on Monday by Cohen's attorney Jon-Michael Dougherty, asks the Supreme Court to consider whether the government can revoke a prisoner's approved release to home confinement as punishment for criticizing the president.
Cohen, who served time in federal prison after pleading guilty to campaign finance charges and lying to Congress, claims he was placed in solitary confinement for speaking out against Trump. Although a federal judge initially ordered his release, deeming the action "retaliatory," Cohen later sued, arguing that his constitutional rights had been violated.
In his petition to the Supreme Court, Dougherty draws parallels between Cohen's case and landmark decisions protecting Americans' rights, such as the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling that legalized same-sex marriage. The attorney argues that the case revolves around the balance between fundamental constitutional rights and executive power.
Dougherty's brief emphasizes the gravity of the situation, stating that it involves a sitting president personally intervening to keep a U.S. citizen in prison for criticism. He warns of the potential chilling effect on free speech if such conduct goes unchecked.
The petition comes after a federal appeals court rejected Cohen's attempt to revive his lawsuit against Trump, former Attorney General Bill Barr, and other Justice Department officials.
In January, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court's decision against Cohen. While acknowledging that Cohen's release "may not have made Cohen whole," the court found no legal basis for awarding him damages.
Cohen's legal team argues that a federal judge has already recognized the retaliatory nature of his solitary confinement. They contend that the Supreme Court should act to protect individuals from wrongful government behavior.
Dougherty wrote in the filing:
What this case is about is the balance between fundamental constitutional rights and Executive power. It asks whether the courts will provide a deterrent remedy when Executive power tramples those rights in ways that would have been unimaginable to every generation of American past and present. It is about the exercise of a type of power with which the Founders were well-acquainted and against which they fought a war for independence.
The case raises significant questions about the limits of presidential authority and the protection of individual rights. Cohen's team argues that allowing such actions to go unchallenged could set a dangerous precedent for future administrations.
If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case, it could potentially clarify the boundaries of executive power in relation to the treatment of prisoners and critics of the administration. The outcome could have far-reaching implications for free speech and the rights of those in federal custody.
Cohen's allegations of retaliation for his critical memoir touch on fundamental issues of free speech and the use of federal power. The former lawyer claims he was unfairly targeted for exercising his First Amendment rights, a charge that, if proven, could have significant ramifications for how the government treats its critics. The case underscores the ongoing tensions between Trump and his former associates, many of whom have become outspoken critics since leaving his inner circle.
