A U.S. District judge ruled this week that Donald Trump’s former attorney Michael Cohen cannot revive his claim that his former boss retaliated against him.
Cohen, who became infamous for being the former president’s “fixer,” was sentenced to three years in jail in 2018 after pleading guilty to lying to Congress, tax evasion, and campaign finance violations.
While he was behind bars, he started writing a book that detailed his experiences with Trump.
In 2020, at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, Cohen was released from prison as part of an effort to stop the spread of the virus in prison populations. A few months later, he was sent back to jail after an argument about whether he was allowed to talk to the media to promote his book while he was confined to his home.
The ACLU sued on Cohen’s behalf, arguing he was ordered back to jail by the Trump administration’s Department of Justice as retaliation for his book, called “Disloyal: A Memoir.” When it was initially released, it debuted in the No. 1 spot on Amazon’s bestseller list.
Recently, Cohen tried to revive his claims of retaliation against Trump, but that was dismissed for a second time by Lewis Liman, a U.S. District judge, this week.
In the ruling, Liman wrote that Cohen’s claims that his being sent back to prison was in violation of the Constitution weren’t viable.
Appeals court: Michael Cohen can’t hold Donald Trump liable for retaliatory imprisonmenthttps://t.co/kyA9XachQR pic.twitter.com/hUDShUjSMb
— The Washington Times (@WashTimes) January 3, 2024
Cohen filed a brief in the case, asking for the court to reverse the original dismissal, and recognize in the process that “where such a grievous injury is done to a citizen’s rights and to the nation’s rule of law, there must be a remedy.”
Cohen had claimed that he suffered various physical ailments such as anxiety, shortness of breath, and headaches as he spent nearly all day every day in a very small prison cell.
Alina Habba, one of Trump’s lawyers, praised Tuesday’s decision by Liman in a statement, saying the case “was doomed from its inception” and promising to “continue to fight against any frivolous suit aimed at our client.”
