Supreme Court Rejects Michael Cohen's Appeal Against Trump
The Supreme Court declined to entertain an appeal from Michael Cohen, former attorney to ex-President Donald Trump, earlier today. Cohen had sought to resurrect his civil rights claim against the former president.
Claims of Retaliation
Cohen had accused Trump, former Attorney General William Barr, and other federal officials of retaliating against him by returning him to prison. This was allegedly due to his promotion of a book that was critical of Trump. Cohen's petition stated, “This case represents the principle that presidents and their subordinates can lock away critics of the executive without consequence.”
The Lower Courts' Ruling
As reported by Sam Dorman for The Epoch Times, Cohen contended that two lower courts had erroneously dismissed his claim that Trump had infringed upon his rights by terminating his prison furlough during the COVID-19 pandemic. Cohen's petition stated that he had refused to sign a federal form, presented to him by his probation officers, that would have barred him from interacting with the media, including posting on social media. At that time, Cohen was penning a book that was critical of Trump.
Concerns Over Free Speech
Jon-Michael Dougherty, Cohen's attorney, expressed concern over the ruling, stating it "signals a dangerous moment in American democracy,” and raises questions about free-speech rights. Trump and the Justice Department, however, filed briefs opposing Cohen's petition.
Legal Precedents and Arguments
Cohen had sought to establish a private right of action under the Supreme Court’s 1971 precedent in Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents. While this case upheld a cause of action related to unlawful search and seizures, Cohen asked the Supreme Court to consider whether it should apply to his circumstances. He claimed that he was subjected to “retaliation for his refusal to waive his right to free speech.”
U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar raised concerns about the separation of powers and suggested that Cohen could have pursued alternative remedies such as the Bureau of Prisons’ Administrative Remedy Program. Trump argued that Cohen's attempt to expand the precedent under Bivens would disrupt the constitution’s separation of powers and that the doctrine of presidential immunity presented an “insurmountable obstacle” to Cohen’s claim.
Trump's attorney, Alina Habba, stated that the Supreme Court had rightly denied Cohen's petition, and urged him to "finally abandon his frivolous and desperate claims.”
Bottom Line
The Supreme Court's decision to reject Michael Cohen's appeal marks a significant development in the ongoing legal battles involving the former president. It raises questions about the balance of power, freedom of speech, and the potential for retaliation against critics of the executive. What are your thoughts on this matter? Feel free to share this article with your friends and discuss. For more updates like this, you can sign up for the Daily Briefing, which is delivered every day at 6pm.
