The highest court in the land has put an end to a long-running legal battle between a disgraced lawyer and his former client.
Fox News reported that the Supreme Court rejected Michael Cohen's appeal to revive his lawsuit against former President Donald Trump. The lawsuit alleged that Cohen's 2020 imprisonment was an act of retaliation by the Trump administration.
Cohen, who once served as Trump's personal attorney, had sought monetary damages from Trump, former U.S. Attorney General William Barr, federal prison officials, and the federal government. The lawsuit claimed that Cohen's return to prison in July 2020 was orchestrated as punishment for his plans to publish a book critical of Trump.
The Supreme Court's decision to dismiss Cohen's appeal marks the final chapter in this legal saga. Cohen had argued that his First Amendment rights were violated when he was sent back to prison after being released to home confinement during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Cohen's legal team contended that the decision to reimprison him was directly related to his intention to publish a tell-all memoir about his experiences working for Trump. The book, titled "Disloyal: A Memoir: The True Story of the Former Personal Attorney to President Donald J. Trump," was seen as a potential threat by the Trump administration, according to Cohen's claims.
The lawsuit's dismissal comes after two lower courts had already ruled against Cohen, basing their decisions on a narrow interpretation of a 1971 Supreme Court case, Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents.
Following the Supreme Court's decision, Trump's attorney, Alina Habba, issued a statement celebrating the outcome. Habba said:
Michael Cohen has exhausted every avenue of his pathetic attempt to drag my client into court time and time again. As expected, the Supreme Court has correctly denied Michael Cohen's petition and he must finally abandon his frivolous and desperate claims.
Cohen's relationship with Trump soured dramatically following the 2016 election. He ultimately served three years in prison for various federal crimes related to his work for Trump, including lying to Congress.
During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, Cohen was released to home confinement. However, he was sent back to prison after refusing to sign an agreement that would have limited his ability to interact with the media and post on social media platforms.
In his petition to the Supreme Court, Cohen argued that the case represented a crucial test of executive power and constitutional protections. His legal team stated:
Presidents are not kings. This case represents the principle that presidents and their subordinates can lock away critics of the executive without consequence. That cannot be the law in the country the Founders thought they created when they threw off the yoke of the monarch.
The Supreme Court's decision to reject Cohen's appeal came without comment, a common practice for the court when declining to hear cases. This silence leaves room for speculation about the justices' reasoning but provides no official insight into their decision-making process.
The court's rejection effectively upholds the lower courts' rulings, which had dismissed Cohen's claims based on legal precedent limiting citizens' ability to sue federal officials for constitutional violations.
The Supreme Court's decision to reject Cohen's appeal without comment brings this particular legal battle to a definitive close. It reaffirms the difficulty of bringing lawsuits against former presidents and high-ranking officials for alleged retaliatory actions. The case highlights the ongoing tension between protecting individual rights and maintaining executive discretion in matters of federal imprisonment and release conditions.
