A former presidential confidant's legal battle reaches a dead end at the nation's highest court.
According to MSNBC, the Supreme Court has refused to hear Michael Cohen's appeal seeking damages for alleged retaliation during Donald Trump's presidency.
The court's denial aligns with its longstanding reluctance to entertain similar claims against federal officials. Despite Cohen's argument that his case presented exceptional circumstances, the justices remained unconvinced, declining to review the matter without any accompanying commentary.
The high court's decision reflects a consistent pattern of limiting so-called Bivens claims, which allow individuals to sue federal officials for constitutional violations.
Since the landmark 1971 Bivens case, the court has repeatedly narrowed the scope for such legal actions.
In a 2022 ruling, Justice Clarence Thomas emphasized the court's restrictive approach, noting that over four decades, the justices had declined to expand Bivens-style claims in eleven separate instances. Thomas stated that the court would only consider such claims under the most extraordinary circumstances.
Cohen's legal team argued that his situation met these rare criteria, but their efforts failed to persuade the required four justices necessary to grant a review of the case.
The crux of Cohen's appeal stems from events during his imprisonment for crimes related to his work for Trump.
While serving his sentence, Cohen began writing a book critical of the then-president. He was temporarily released due to the COVID-19 pandemic but was swiftly returned to prison when he refused to waive his First Amendment rights.
A federal judge later ruled that the government's actions were retaliatory, directly responding to Cohen's desire to exercise his free speech rights by publishing a book critical of President Trump. This judicial finding formed the basis of Cohen's argument for the Supreme Court to consider his case.
Both former President Trump and the federal government, representing former Attorney General Bill Barr and other officials, filed motions opposing Cohen's petition. Their successful efforts to block the appeal highlight the challenges faced by individuals seeking redress for alleged constitutional violations by federal actors.
Constitutional scholars and former federal officials supported Cohen's bid, warning the justices about the potential consequences of denying review. They argued that the lower court's decision could embolden federal officials to punish government critics without fear of repercussions.
The Supreme Court's refusal to hear Cohen's case underscores the limited avenues available for seeking damages against federal officials for alleged constitutional violations. It reinforces the court's reluctance to expand the scope of Bivens claims, even in cases where lower courts have found evidence of government retaliation.
