The Supreme Court has declined to hear Michael Cohen's appeal regarding his civil rights claim against former President Donald Trump. This decision marks a significant setback for Cohen, who sought to challenge his alleged mistreatment while in federal custody.
NBC News reported that the justices left lower court rulings intact, effectively closing the door on Cohen's attempt to pursue allegations that Trump and other officials violated his rights by placing him in solitary confinement for writing a tell-all book.
Cohen, Trump's former personal lawyer, and fixer found himself at the center of a legal storm in 2020 while serving a three-year sentence for various charges related to his work for Trump.
Initially placed under home confinement due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Cohen was ordered back to prison after refusing to sign a form that would have restricted his ability to speak to the press or post on social media.
Cohen's Allegations of Retaliation and Constitutional Violations
During his 16-day stint in solitary confinement, Cohen's situation drew significant attention. A federal judge eventually ordered his release, determining that officials had retaliated against him on free speech grounds.
This ruling prompted Cohen to pursue legal action against Trump and other officials, seeking damages for alleged violations of his Fourth Amendment rights, which protect against unreasonable search and seizure.
Cohen's case highlights the broader issue of constitutional claims against individual federal officials. In recent years, the Supreme Court has made it increasingly difficult to bring such claims, effectively limiting the scope of a 1971 precedent known as Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics.
Michael Cohen expressed his disappointment with the Supreme Court's decision, stating:
The American people can no longer speak freely without fear of incarceration by a corrupt president and his/her willing and complicit underlings. These are basic, fundamental rights that makes America the beacon of democracy. Now, the guardrails are gone!
Supreme Court's Recent Rulings and Their Impact
The Supreme Court's reluctance to hear Cohen's case aligns with its recent trend of narrowing the scope of Bivens claims. In 2022, the Court's ruling in Egbert v. Boule effectively placed such claims on life support, making it nearly impossible for federal officials to pursue constitutional violations through this legal avenue.
Lower courts have cited the Egbert ruling hundreds of times when dismissing Bivens claims, affecting cases involving a wide range of alleged unconstitutional conduct. This trend has significantly reduced the legal options available for seeking accountability when federal officials, including law enforcement, are accused of unlawful acts.
Cohen's case was dismissed by both a federal judge in New York and the 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, with both courts citing the Supreme Court's recent rulings as justification for their decisions. This pattern of dismissals underscores the growing difficulty in holding federal officials accountable for alleged constitutional violations.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court's rejection of Cohen's appeal marks another chapter in the ongoing debate over constitutional protections and federal accountability. As the legal landscape continues to evolve, the balance between individual rights and government authority remains a contentious issue.
While Cohen's legal options in this particular case may have been exhausted, the broader questions raised by his situation continue to resonate. The challenge of ensuring accountability for federal officials while maintaining effective governance remains a critical issue in American jurisprudence and politics.
