The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to deny an appeal from former President Donald Trump’s ex-lawyer Michael Cohen marks the latest development in a series of legal battles associated with the Trump administration. Michael Cohen, once a close confidant and personal attorney to Trump, had sought damages in a lawsuit alleging retaliation for refusing to sign a non-disclosure agreement. This agreement purportedly would have barred him from making public statements about Trump, which Cohen claims led to his re-imprisonment during a probation meeting in July 2020. Cohen’s appeal was predicated on what is known as a Bivens suit—a legal recourse involving constitutional rights violations by federal officers.
The case, formally titled Cohen v. Trump, 24-41, originated from Cohen’s 2018 guilty plea related to his work for Trump. Cohen claimed that his refusal to accept a stipulation barring media engagements led to his placement in solitary confinement. However, a U.S. appeals court in New York dismissed the case, citing limitations set by previous Supreme Court rulings that restrict the circumstances under which Bivens suits can proceed.
The Supreme Court’s noncommittal decision to reject the appeal was supported by both the Biden administration and Trump, highlighting a rare alignment of interests between the current and former administrations. The ruling underscores the evolving nature of Bivens jurisprudence and points to an increasing judicial hesitance to expand constitutional claims against federal officers without explicit legislative authorization.
For further details, the original report can be found on Bloomberg Law.