Supreme Court Rejects Michael Cohen's Civil Rights Claim Against Trump Over Tell-All Book
The U.S. Supreme Court recently declined to hear Michael Cohen’s civil rights claim against former President Donald Trump. This decision marks the latest chapter in the legal battle between Cohen and Trump, sparked by Cohen’s attempt to publish a tell-all book detailing his years working as Trump’s lawyer and fixer. Cohen, who served time in prison, alleged that Trump and his administration violated his First Amendment rights by preventing the publication of his book while he was under house arrest. The case had been winding through the courts, but with the Supreme Court’s refusal to take it up, Cohen’s legal avenues have significantly narrowed.
Michael Cohen’s Civil Rights Claim Explained
At the heart of the legal dispute is Michael Cohen’s argument that his civil rights were infringed when he was prohibited from releasing his book, Disloyal, while serving a sentence for campaign finance violations, tax evasion, and lying to Congress. Cohen has long argued that Trump’s efforts to block the book amounted to retaliation for his cooperation with federal prosecutors investigating Trump’s activities.
Cohen was under house arrest when he was ordered to cease work on the book, a move that Cohen claimed was politically motivated and intended to silence him. He argued that the restriction was a violation of his First Amendment rights, as it infringed on his freedom of speech.
The legal case centered on whether or not the Trump administration’s actions constituted a civil rights violation. Cohen and his legal team maintained that the actions taken against him were part of a broader pattern of attempts to intimidate and retaliate against individuals who have spoken out against Trump.
The Lower Court’s Ruling and Cohen’s Appeal
Cohen initially filed his lawsuit in federal court, where his claims were reviewed in the context of both his status as a prisoner and the content of his book. The lower courts, however, ruled against Cohen, stating that the conditions of his confinement and his house arrest were not unduly restrictive, and that there was no solid evidence to suggest that his First Amendment rights were specifically targeted due to the political nature of his book.
Cohen’s legal team argued that these rulings failed to adequately consider the political dimensions of the case. They pointed to other examples of Trump administration officials allegedly attempting to suppress critical voices, suggesting a pattern of behavior that extended beyond Cohen’s case. Cohen’s argument focused on the notion that Trump used his power and influence to enforce silence on former allies turned critics—a claim that resonated with broader concerns about civil liberties under Trump’s presidency.
After the unfavorable rulings from the lower courts, Cohen sought relief from the U.S. Supreme Court, hoping that the nation’s highest judicial authority would take up the case and provide a broader interpretation of civil rights protections in the context of political retaliation. However, the Supreme Court’s decision to reject the case marked the end of this particular legal battle.
Supreme Court Declines to Hear the Case
The Supreme Court issued its decision not to hear Cohen’s appeal, leaving in place the rulings from the lower courts. As is customary, the Court did not provide an explanation for its refusal to take the case, a common practice when denying a petition for certiorari. This decision effectively ends Cohen’s pursuit of legal action against Trump based on his claims of civil rights violations.
For Cohen, the ruling represents a major setback. Without the Supreme Court’s intervention, the previous rulings that rejected his claims will stand, and Cohen’s legal options are now limited. The rejection of his appeal means that Cohen will not be able to pursue further legal challenges related to this specific claim.
Why Did the Supreme Court Reject the Case?
While the Supreme Court does not typically provide reasons for declining to hear a case, there are several factors that may have contributed to the decision. One key issue may have been the lack of a clear-cut constitutional question in the case. Although Cohen framed his claims as a First Amendment issue, the courts have traditionally afforded significant discretion to authorities in managing the terms of imprisonment or supervised release, particularly when the individual in question has been convicted of a crime.
Additionally, the fact that Cohen’s book was eventually published, and that he was not ultimately prevented from sharing his story, may have weakened his case in the eyes of the Court. The argument that his rights were violated would likely have been stronger if the book had been permanently suppressed.
The Broader Implications of the Ruling
The Supreme Court’s decision not to hear Cohen’s case has broader implications for both legal precedent and political discourse. For one, it reinforces the challenges that individuals face when attempting to bring civil rights claims against former government officials, particularly in cases where freedom of speech is intertwined with issues of incarceration or supervised release.
More broadly, the case highlights ongoing concerns about political retaliation and the use of government power to suppress dissent. Although Cohen’s specific legal claims were unsuccessful, the broader debate about how political figures use their authority to target critics remains highly relevant.
During his presidency, Trump faced numerous allegations of using his platform and position to punish those who crossed him, both politically and personally. Cohen’s case is one of several that sought to hold Trump accountable for such actions, but with the Supreme Court’s decision, the legal options for pursuing those claims have narrowed.
