Michael Cohen is heading to the Supreme Court in his long-running battle with former President Trump.
Cohen was once Trump’s fixer and loyal soldier before turning against his boss and testifying as the main witness in Trump’s criminal trial that ended in his conviction. asked the Supreme Court Revives lawsuits seeking damages for retaliation during prison sentences.
In an interview with The Hill, Cohen said his lawsuit was about deterrence, suggesting the retaliation he faced was “exactly what” Trump means when he vows full retaliation if he is re-elected, and that his own experience was “just a dry run.”
“Donald has opened a Pandora’s box for a future Trump 2.0 who will act in the same dictatorial fashion,” Cohen said. “This writ of certiorari will be part of a process to prevent U.S. citizens from being jailed for refusing to waive their First Amendment rights or for expressing criticism.”
The controversy stems from Cohen’s criminal case. The former president’s former personal lawyer pleaded guilty in 2018 to federal campaign finance and other charges and served a three-year sentence, some of which he claims he committed at the direction of Trump.
When the COVID-19 pandemic hit, Cohen’s prison sentence was furloughed and he was placed under house arrest due to fears the virus could worsen his health.
But authorities later ordered Cohen back into prison and into solitary confinement after he raised concerns about the terms of his release that required him to give up his right to criticize then-President Trump. A federal judge later released him again, ruling that he had suffered unconstitutional retaliation for publishing a damaging book about Trump and his desire to criticize him on social media.
Cohen is now suing Trump, several officials involved, and the federal government itself, seeking damages for allegedly violating his constitutional rights. After a lower court ruled that the case cannot go forward, Cohen appealed to the Supreme Court on Wednesday.
Cohen faces a tough situation: Over the past 44 years, the Supreme Court has dismissed 12 cases like Cohen’s, known as Bivens cases.
“This is not something that can be easily let go,” Cohen said of the ongoing legal battle. “I want to make sure this never happens to anyone.”
Cohen’s lawyer, John Michael Dougherty, wrote in the petition on Wednesday that Trump and his subordinates conspired to manipulate the federal prison system “to silence one of the President’s most vocal and prominent critics.”
But in the interview, he insisted the case doesn’t just involve the former president and his one-time personal lawyer.
“This is about the proper relationship between a free people and a constitutionally constrained, limited government,” Dougherty said. “This is not about Donald Trump. This is not about Michael Cohen. It just happens to involve these two people.”
The lawsuit is just one in a series of battles between Trump and Cohen that range from social media attacks to testimony in the former president’s civil and criminal trials. Cohen, who once vowed to take a bullet for his former boss, has become one of Trump’s most vocal critics since being ousted from his inner circle following federal law enforcement intervention.
In 1971, the Supreme Court Bivens vs. Six Unknown Agents A Brooklyn man has been allowed to seek damages after alleging that the Federal Drug Enforcement Administration violated his Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Although there is no law allowing such a lawsuit, the court ruled that the man has an implied right to seek relief.
Over the next decade, the Court expanded the scope of Bivens to include Fifth Amendment due process employment discrimination lawsuits and Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual punishment lawsuits alleging inadequate medical care in prisons.
But in 12 cases since 1983, the Supreme Court has reversed course, refusing to apply the remedy to other alleged constitutional violations, arguing that that role is best left to Congress. In the most recent case, Justice Clarence Thomas’ majority opinion made clear that Bivens’ argument does not hold up “except in highly unusual circumstances.”
“If this case does not qualify as ‘most extraordinary circumstances’ then what cases do?” Dougherty wrote to the judges.
