DOJ challenges Cohen"s Supreme Court lawsuit against Trump
- Michael Cohen is attempting to sue Donald Trump and the Biden DOJ for damages related to his 2020 imprisonment.
- Cohen claims he faced retaliation for his critical remarks about Trump, leading to his solitary confinement.
- Both Trump and the Biden administration oppose Cohen's lawsuit, raising concerns about presidential immunity and constitutional claims.
Michael Cohen, former personal lawyer to Donald Trump, is seeking to sue Trump and the Biden Department of Justice (DOJ) for damages related to his imprisonment in 2020. Cohen claims he was improperly detained due to his critical stance towards Trump, which he argues violated his rights. While serving a three-year sentence for various offenses, Cohen was placed in solitary confinement after opposing speech restrictions imposed by the Trump DOJ that would have delayed the release of his book, 'Disloyal.' A judge previously agreed that Trump retaliated against Cohen, but lower courts have consistently denied his claims for damages. Cohen's attorney described the conditions of his solitary confinement as traumatic, highlighting the negative impact on Cohen's health, including dangerously high blood pressure and anxiety. The legal battle has drawn responses from both Trump's legal team and the Biden administration, with arguments focusing on presidential immunity and the constitutional basis for Cohen's claims. Trump's attorney emphasized the separation-of-powers concerns that could arise from allowing such a lawsuit to proceed. The Biden DOJ's response contended that Cohen's claims were improperly framed under the Fourth Amendment, suggesting they were more appropriate under the First Amendment. They argued that the Supreme Court has previously declined to extend damages eligibility for First Amendment retaliation claims, urging the court to deny Cohen's petition. Cohen's case raises significant questions about the limits of presidential power and the treatment of critics within the executive branch. His attorney warned that allowing presidents to silence dissenters without consequence could set a dangerous precedent for future administrations.