Michael Cohen makes final attempt at Supreme Court to win appeal ruling against Trump

Michael Cohen has filed his latest brief in an effort to get the Supreme Court to reconsider his claim for civil damages against Donald Trump and other Trump administration officials for retaliating against him. The high court filing represents the final word the justices must consider in the dispute before deciding whether to pursue Cohen’s long-running appeal.

The former Trump fixer’s case dates back to when he served time for Trump-related crimes and began writing a book that would be unfavorable to the then-president. Cohen was released during the Covid pandemic, but he told judges that when he did not immediately agree to waive his right to free speech, he was returned to prison and placed in prison. isolation. He was released again after a federal judge ruled that the government’s action “was retaliatory in response to Cohen’s desire to exercise his First Amendment rights to publish a book critical of the president and discuss this book on social networks.

Given the shocking factual context, you might wonder why Cohen’s trial would be impossible in this situation. This is due to the law surrounding the type of relief sought by Cohen, which is what is known as the Bivens claim, named after a 1971 Supreme Court case that allowed a claim for damages against federal officials for alleged violations of the Fourth Amendment.

The problem for Cohen is that the judges all but abandoned Biven’s claims. Justice Clarence Thomas noted in a 2022 decision that “over the past 42 years, however, we have 11 times declined to implicate a similar cause of action for other alleged constitutional violations,” writing that the court would reject the claims “in all cases.” but the most unusual circumstances.

Cohen insists in his response brief, filed Monday, that his case “presents the most unusual circumstances.” He notes that a federal judge found that the government sent him back to prison in retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights, and he further notes that the other side of the litigation does not claim “that Jailing critics for speaking out is not the kind of bad behavior that needs to be deterred.

The other camp is made up not only of the former president – ​​whose opposition brief cites the recent immunity ruling as an additional reason for rejecting Cohen’s candidacy – but also of the federal government itself, which has filed a separate brief on his own behalf and on behalf of the former attorney general. William Barr and other officials, similarly urging the justices to reject Cohen.

If the justices reject the appeal, Cohen argues in his latest brief, it will mean “the courts will not deter an executive determined to incarcerate its critics.” This declaration would threaten the freedoms for which this country was founded and on which so many areas of American life depend.

It takes four justices to agree to consider an appeal, so we’ll see what kind of statement the court makes in this case.

THE Deadline: Legal Newsletter returns on October 4. Subscribe for expert analysis on the week’s top legal topics, including updates on the new Supreme Court term and developments in Donald Trump’s legal cases.