Disgraced Lawyer’s Supreme Court Appeal Challenges Erosion of Civil Rights Protections
Michael Cohen, once a close confidant of Donald Trump, now finds himself in an unlikely role: a champion of civil rights. His Supreme Court appeal, challenging the dismissal of his lawsuit against Trump and other officials, is not only a personal battle but a crucial test of the Supreme Court’s increasingly hostile stance towards **Bivens claims**, lawsuits alleging constitutional violations by federal officials. Cohen’s case, scheduled for review on October 18th, could significantly impact the ability of citizens to hold powerful government figures accountable for abuses of power. This fight exposes a growing concern about the shrinking scope of civil rights protections and access to justice against government misconduct, a trend drawing criticism from both sides of the political spectrum.
Key Takeaways:
- High-Stakes Appeal: Michael Cohen’s Supreme Court case challenges the dismissal of his lawsuit alleging retaliation by Donald Trump for writing a tell-all book.
- Erosion of Bivens Claims: The case highlights the Supreme Court’s shrinking willingness to allow **Bivens claims**, making it increasingly difficult to hold federal officials accountable for constitutional violations.
- Broader Implications: The outcome could drastically affect the ability of citizens to sue federal officials for abuses of power, potentially emboldening government overreach.
- Unlikely Opposition: Cohen faces opposition not only from Trump but also from the Biden administration’s Justice Department, which argues that Cohen received adequate redress.
- Grave Concerns: Cohen draws parallels between his experience and the suppression of dissent in authoritarian regimes, highlighting the potentially dangerous ramifications of limiting accountability for government officials.
Cohen’s Fight for Accountability
Michael Cohen’s journey from trusted Trump advisor to outspoken critic is well-documented. After serving a three-year prison sentence for charges related to his work for Trump, Cohen penned a tell-all book, leading to what he claims was retaliatory action by Trump resulting in his return to prison, ending his home confinement arrangement. This action spurred Cohen to file a civil rights lawsuit against Trump, former Attorney General William Barr, and other officials, alleging violations of his constitutional rights, specifically his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.
The Legal Landscape of Bivens Claims
Cohen’s lawsuit hinges on the precedent set by the 1971 case, Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, which allowed citizens to sue federal officials for constitutional violations. However, the Supreme Court has increasingly limited the applicability of Bivens claims in recent years, making it harder to successfully bring such cases. The 2022 case, Egbert v. Boule, dealt a significant blow, effectively limiting the scope of Bivens actions, a decision widely criticized for hindering accountability. This restrictive trend has prompted concerns that federal officials operate with increased impunity.
The Lower Courts’ Decisions And The Supreme Court’s Role
Both a federal judge in New York and the 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals cited Egbert v. Boule when dismissing Cohen’s claims. This highlights the far-reaching impact of the Supreme Court’s decision on similar cases across the lower courts. Cohen’s appeal represents a last-ditch effort to challenge this trend and potentially revive the viability of Bivens actions in protecting individuals’ constitutional rights against government overreach. Even Cohen’s lawyer acknowledges the uphill battle they face due to the Supreme Court’s recent precedent.
An Unlikely Alliance Against Accountability
Adding a surprising twist, Cohen finds himself facing opposition from an unexpected alliance: the Biden administration and Donald Trump. Both the current and former presidents’ legal teams argue that the Supreme Court should not intervene in Cohen’s case. The Biden administration’s Justice Department, represented by Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, contends that Cohen ultimately received the relief he sought when a judge ordered his release from prison. Trump’s brief, authored by Alina Habba, maintains that the lower courts correctly applied existing Supreme Court precedent. This unusual convergence of interests against Cohen underscores the complexity and significance of the issues at stake.
Presidential Immunity and the implications
Trump’s legal team also suggests that even if the case proceeded, he would likely claim presidential immunity under the 1978 Supreme Court precedent protecting presidents from civil suits for actions taken while in office. This claim draws a parallel to the Supreme Court’s July ruling granting Trump some immunity in the criminal case related to efforts to overturn the 2020 election. The potential for overlapping and conflicting applications of immunity further complicates the legal landscape surrounding presidential actions and accountability.
Cohen’s Urgent Plea and Broader Implications
Despite the seemingly slim chances of success, Cohen frames his case as a matter of principle, drawing stark comparisons to the suppression of dissent in authoritarian regimes. He equates his treatment to the experiences of critics of Russian President Vladimir Putin who face imprisonment for voicing opposition. **”The only difference between what Vladimir Putin had done to those individuals and what Donald Trump and Bill Barr had done to me is that I didn’t die there,”** he poignantly stated. This rhetoric underscores the gravity of the situation and the profound implications for the preservation of civil liberties in the United States.
The Future of Civil Rights and Access to Justice
The Supreme Court’s decision in Cohen’s case will have far-reaching consequences. A ruling against Cohen would effectively solidify the narrowing of **Bivens actions**, making it drastically more difficult for citizens to hold federal officials accountable for constitutional violations. This could embolden government misconduct and significantly erode public trust in the fairness and effectiveness of the judicial system. Conversely, a ruling in Cohen’s favor could revitalize **Bivens claims** and underscore the importance of preserving robust mechanisms for holding powerful individuals accountable for their actions.
Regardless of the outcome, Cohen’s case highlights the critical importance of the continuing debate about the balance between governmental power and individual rights. His appeal serves as a reminder of the ongoing struggle to ensure that even those with immense power remain accountable under the rule of law.
