The Biden administration and former President Donald Trump have found themselves on the same side of a legal battle. Both parties are opposing Michael Cohen's efforts to seek damages through the Supreme Court for his imprisonment in 2020.
According to the Washington Examiner, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Trump filed separate court documents on Friday, arguing that the high court should reject Cohen's claim of improper detention due to his criticism of Trump.
Cohen, who previously served as Trump's personal lawyer, is attempting to sue Trump and the DOJ for damages. The lawsuit stems from Cohen's time serving a three-year prison sentence for various offenses, including campaign finance violations and tax evasion.
In 2020, Cohen became eligible for home confinement due to COVID-19 policies but claims the Trump DOJ imposed unusual speech restrictions as terms of his release.
Cohen alleges that the speech restrictions were aimed at delaying the release of his book, "Disloyal: The True Story of Michael Cohen, Former Personal Attorney to President Donald J. Trump." After opposing these restrictions, Cohen states he was placed in solitary confinement for approximately two weeks in July 2020 despite having already been in home confinement.
Cohen's attorney described the experience as traumatic, stating in the Supreme Court petition:
Cohen spent roughly twenty-three-and-a-half hours a day alone in a cell with poor ventilation, no air conditioning, and a broken window. Cohen's health suffered, with his blood pressure becoming dangerously high, resulting in severe headaches, shortness of breath, and anxiety. While in solitary confinement, Cohen was unable to complete his book or make any public statements.
A judge at the time agreed that Trump had retaliated against Cohen and granted an emergency application for his release. However, lower courts have consistently declined to award Cohen damages for this incident.
Trump's attorney, Alina Habba, and Biden-appointed Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar presented separate arguments against Cohen's petition. Habba's response heavily relied on the Supreme Court's recent ruling on presidential immunity, emphasizing the potential separation of powers concerns.
Prelogar, representing the DOJ, argued that Cohen's claim was based on the wrong constitutional amendment. She stated that his allegations of retaliation for speech would be more appropriately addressed under the First Amendment rather than the Fourth Amendment.
Cohen's attorney argues that the case has significant implications for presidential power and the ability to criticize the executive branch. The petition suggests that without consequences for such actions, presidents and their subordinates could potentially imprison critics of the executive.
This unusual alignment between the Biden administration and Trump in opposing Cohen's bid highlights the complex legal and constitutional issues at play. The Supreme Court's decision on whether to hear the case could have far-reaching implications for presidential authority and the rights of critics to seek damages for alleged retaliation.
In conclusion, the DOJ and Trump's opposition to Michael Cohen's Supreme Court petition marks a rare instance of agreement between the current and former administrations. Cohen's claims of retaliation and improper detention have been rejected by lower courts, but he argues that the case has significant implications for presidential power.
The Supreme Court's decision on whether to hear the case could potentially impact the balance between executive authority and the rights of critics. As the legal battle unfolds, it remains to be seen how the high court will address these complex constitutional issues.
