Supreme Court Rejects Michael Cohen’s Lawsuit Against Donald Trump Over Retaliation Claims

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected an appeal by Michael Cohen, Donald Trump’s former personal lawyer, blocking his lawsuit against the former president. Cohen accused Trump of retaliating by sending him back to prison while on home confinement, allegedly due to his plans to release a tell-all book critical of Trump.

Court Decision Upholds Lower Ruling

The Supreme Court’s decision upholds a lower court ruling that dismissed Cohen’s lawsuit. This ruling follows a 2022 Supreme Court decision limiting citizens’ ability to seek financial damages from federal officials for constitutional violations. Cohen’s case relied on a civil rights claim under the Bivens doctrine, which permits lawsuits against federal officers for constitutional breaches.

Cohen’s Role in Trump’s Inner Circle

Cohen was once Trump’s trusted legal adviser and self-described “fixer,” but he became a vocal critic after pleading guilty to multiple felonies in 2018. One of the key charges involved a “hush money” scheme designed to suppress damaging information ahead of the 2016 election. This scheme implicated Trump, further straining their relationship.

Cohen was sentenced to 36 months in prison in 2019, but due to the COVID-19 pandemic, he was temporarily released to home confinement in 2020. During this period, he shared details about a forthcoming book on social media, which he claims prompted his abrupt return to prison.

Allegations of Retaliation

Cohen claimed that during a probation meeting in July 2020, he was required to sign a form prohibiting him from engaging with the media. When he refused, he was sent back to Otisville Correctional Facility in New York, where he spent 16 days in solitary confinement. Cohen alleged this was retaliation for his intent to exercise his First Amendment rights by writing a book critical of Trump.

A federal judge later ordered Cohen’s release, ruling that his return to custody was retaliatory. He served the remainder of his sentence at home.

Lawsuit Against Trump and Federal Officials

In December 2021, Cohen filed a lawsuit against Trump, former Attorney General Bill Barr, and federal prison officials, alleging violations of his First, Fourth, and Eighth Amendment rights. The lawsuit sought financial damages based on the Bivens precedent, which holds federal officials accountable for certain constitutional violations.

However, in 2022, the Supreme Court limited the scope of Bivens, ruling it did not apply to excessive-force claims under the Fourth Amendment or First Amendment retaliation claims. This decision led to the dismissal of Cohen’s case, which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit upheld.

Supreme Court’s Rejection of Cohen’s Appeal

Cohen’s appeal argued that federal officials should not be allowed to retaliate against critics without consequences, warning of a threat to free speech and democratic principles. His lawyers described the case as a “profound breach” of the government’s contract with its citizens.

Despite these arguments, the Biden administration and Trump’s legal team urged the Supreme Court to reject Cohen’s appeal. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar contended that decisions about prison or home confinement were legislative matters for Congress, not the courts. Trump’s lawyer, Alina Habba, argued that the former president is immune from civil liability for actions performed in his official capacity.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court declined to hear Cohen’s case, leaving the previous rulings in place and underscoring the legal challenges in suing federal officials for constitutional violations.

Implications of the Ruling

The Supreme Court’s rejection of Cohen’s appeal highlights the difficulty of holding federal officials accountable for constitutional violations through civil suits. It also reinforces the doctrine of presidential immunity, protecting presidents from civil liability for actions taken while in office.

For Cohen, this decision marks another legal defeat in his ongoing battle against Trump, while raising broader concerns about the limits of accountability for government officials