DOJ Strikes Back: Why Michael Cohen’s Attempt to Sue Trump in Supreme Court Is Facing Major Obstacles

In a rare legal battle that has brought former President Donald Trump and the Biden administration together, both parties are opposing Michael Cohen’s efforts to seek damages for his imprisonment in 2020. This unexpected alliance between Trump and his successor marks a peculiar turn of events in the ongoing dispute.

Here are the key points surrounding this controversial case:

• Cohen, Trump’s former personal lawyer, is seeking compensation for his imprisonment stemming from campaign finance violations, tax evasion, and false statements.
• Trump and the Biden Department of Justice have both filed court documents arguing against Cohen’s claim that he was unfairly detained for criticizing Trump.
• The disagreement arose when the Trump DOJ imposed speech restrictions on Cohen, delaying the release of his book titled “Disloyal: The True Story of Michael Cohen, Former Personal Attorney to President Donald J. Trump.”
• After refusing the speech restrictions, Cohen was placed in solitary confinement, which he described as traumatic and detrimental to his health.
• Despite a judge ruling in Cohen’s favor regarding retaliation by Trump, lower courts have rejected Cohen’s claims for damages.
• Trump’s attorney, Alina Habba, emphasized the separation of powers concerns in defending against Cohen’s damages claim, citing presidential immunity.
• On the other hand, Biden-appointed Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argued that Cohen was mistakenly invoking the wrong constitutional amendment for his claims.

These opposing arguments raise critical questions about the limits of presidential power and accountability. The case underscores the complex legal and constitutional issues surrounding government actions against critics of the executive branch.

In conclusion, the ongoing legal battle between Michael Cohen, Donald Trump, and the Biden administration sheds light on the intricate intersection of politics, law, and personal freedoms. As the Supreme Court deliberates on this controversial case, the outcome will have lasting implications for the boundaries of presidential authority and the protection of free speech.