In a recent development, a federal appeals court has denied Michael Cohen’s attempt to revive his lawsuit against former President Donald Trump. Cohen, who claimed he was jailed in retaliation for writing a tell-all book, had sought to reinstate the lawsuit. However, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan ruled against him, stating that the law did not provide a damages remedy for most claims of retaliation.
Cohen, who had already obtained relief by being released from imprisonment to home confinement, served more than a year of his three-year sentence for tax evasion, campaign finance charges, and making a false statement to Congress. Despite the setback, Cohen plans to challenge the court’s decision and bring the case to the Supreme Court, emphasizing the importance of protecting democracy.
Cohen’s attorney, Jon-Michael Doherty, expressed disappointment with the ruling but maintained that they would take the fight to the highest court in the land. Doherty argued that addressing this novel issue of a rogue President using prisons to silence critics required the intervention of the United States Supreme Court. He stressed the need for an adequate remedy against such abuse of power to deter future misconduct by federal officials.
On the other hand, Trump’s attorney, Alina Habba, expressed satisfaction with the court’s decision, describing Cohen’s lawsuit as doomed from the start. Habba vowed to continue fighting against any frivolous suits aimed at their client.
The lawsuit, initially filed in 2020, has been a subject of contention ever since. The Bureau of Prisons previously stated that Cohen’s remand to prison was not retaliatory but a result of his failure to comply with the conditions of the U.S. Probation Office’s Federal Location Monitoring program. Cohen allegedly refused to agree to the terms of the program, including electronic monitoring, and was argumentative in dictating the conditions of his monitoring.
In July 2020, U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein deemed Cohen’s return to prison retaliatory, citing probation officers’ demand for media avoidance as a factor. However, the Justice Department, led by then-Attorney General Bill Barr, and the Bureau of Prisons denied any retaliatory motive.
The recent decision by the appeals court marks a significant development in the legal battle between Cohen and Trump. While Cohen and his legal team plan to continue fighting for Americans’ right to speak freely about their government, the outcome of this case could have lasting implications for the limits of presidential power and the protection of citizens’ first amendment rights.
Brooke Singman, a political correspondent and reporter for Digital, Channel, and FOX Business, contributed to this report.
