Supreme Court dismisses Michael Cohen’s lawsuit against Donald Trump and federal officials
Trump’s ex-adviser sought compensation for being unexpectedly sent back to prison in 2020 after announcing his book about Trump.
WASHINGTON − On Monday, the Supreme Court ended Michael Cohen’s effort to sue former President Donald Trump, which arose from his sudden reincarceration in 2020 that Cohen alleged was a punishment for writing a tell-all book about Trump.
The justices dismissed Cohen’s appeal regarding the lower court’s decision that had rejected his suit.
Cohen claimed that Trump and others attempted to silence him by revoking his home release and placing him in solitary confinement.
Having served as Trump’s dedicated personal attorney and adviser, Cohen was serving a three-year sentence after admitting to facilitating hush money payments to women who claimed to have had affairs with Trump prior to his election.
In 2020, as Cohen was about to move to home confinement, he announced that he had completed a book about Trump. He contended that he was returned to prison after he disregarded probation officers’ requests to avoid social media and the news.
A federal judge had previously ordered Cohen to be released to his family, stating his return to prison was a reaction to his criticisms of Trump.
However, when Cohen sought compensation from Trump, Attorney General William Barr, and prison officials, another federal judge noted that Supreme Court precedents barred such a lawsuit.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed this, stating that Cohen had already received some form of relief when he was returned to home confinement.
Cohen argued that this did not adequately prevent potential future misconduct by officials against their critics.
Cohen’s attorneys informed the Supreme Court that a remedy should exist when a federal judge finds that an individual’s right to free speech has been compromised by imprisonment.
Conversely, the Justice Department asserted that if more remedies were necessary, it should be the responsibility of Congress, rather than the courts, to assess the implications of granting damages.
Additionally, Trump’s legal team argued that allowing lawsuits against a president could hinder their ability to carry out their duties, a principle underscored by the Supreme Court’s ruling this past July affirming that Trump has at least preliminary immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken during his presidency.
They stated, “If this case continues, it would essentially undermine the doctrine of Presidential immunity.”
