Michael Cohen's legal battle against former President Donald Trump has hit a significant roadblock.
On Monday, the Supreme Court declined to hear Cohen's appeal regarding his civil rights claim against Trump and other officials.
NBC News reported that this decision effectively ended Cohen's pursuit of damages for alleged violations of his constitutional rights during his time in federal custody.
The case stems from Cohen's 2020 incarceration while serving a three-year sentence for various charges related to his work for Trump. Cohen, who had been under home confinement due to the COVID-19 pandemic, was ordered back to prison after refusing to sign a form that would have restricted his ability to communicate with the press or post on social media.
Cohen's lawsuit claimed that Trump and other officials violated his Fourth Amendment rights by placing him in solitary confinement for 16 days. This action, according to Cohen, was retaliation for his refusal to stop writing a tell-all book about his experiences working for Trump.
A federal judge had initially ordered Cohen's release, finding that officials had indeed retaliated against him on free speech grounds. However, when Cohen pursued further legal action seeking damages, he encountered significant obstacles in the form of recent Supreme Court rulings that have made it increasingly difficult to bring constitutional claims against individual federal officials.
Lower courts, including a federal judge in New York and the 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, cited these recent Supreme Court decisions when dismissing Cohen's claims. The Supreme Court's decision not to hear Cohen's appeal effectively upholds these lower court rulings.
The Supreme Court's rejection of Cohen's appeal is consistent with its recent trend of limiting the ability to bring constitutional claims against federal officials. This trend has its roots in a series of rulings that have significantly narrowed the scope of a 1971 precedent known as Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics.
In 2022, the Supreme Court further restricted the viability of such claims in the case of Egbert v. Boule. This ruling has been cited hundreds of times by lower courts as grounds for dismissing similar constitutional claims against federal officials.
Cohen expressed his disappointment with the 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!
The Supreme Court's decision not to hear Cohen's case highlights a broader issue regarding the accountability of federal officials, including law enforcement personnel. In a recent statement to NBC News, Cohen expressed concern about the potential implications of a second Trump term, suggesting that without significant deterrents, Trump "won't stop with just locking people up."
With the current legal landscape making it nearly impossible to bring constitutional claims against individual federal officials, there are limited avenues for seeking redress when such officials allegedly commit unlawful acts.
The Supreme Court's rejection of Cohen's appeal marks another chapter in the ongoing debate over the balance between protecting federal officials from frivolous lawsuits and ensuring accountability for potential constitutional violations. The legal landscape heavily favors protection for federal officials, making it exceptionally challenging for individuals to seek damages for alleged constitutional violations.
