Michael Cohen has filed a petition with the Supreme Court, seeking to hold former President Donald Trump accountable for allegedly using federal law enforcement to retaliate against him. The case addresses whether a U.S. president can weaponize the Department of Justice to punish critics, raising significant constitutional questions.

Newsweek reported that Michael Cohen asked the Supreme Court to take up his case against Donald Trump.

In his petition, Cohen requests the justices to review whether U.S. citizens can hold a president accountable for retaliating against enemies by weaponizing federal law enforcement.

Moreover, the petition underscores that "Presidents are not kings," referencing the historical case of John Wilkes and asserting that such actions should not be permissible in the United States.

Furthermore, Cohen argues that no president should use the Department of Justice to unconstitutionally remand a citizen to prison, especially in solitary confinement, for exercising their First Amendment rights.

This assertion, in particular, highlights the fundamental constitutional questions raised by his case, which Cohen believes is "ripe for the SCOTUS."

Six months ago, a federal appeals court rejected Cohen's attempt to revive his lawsuit against Trump, former Attorney General Bill Barr, and other Justice Department officials for alleged retaliation related to his anti-Trump memoir.

Cohen, who served time in federal prison for campaign finance charges and lying to Congress, claims he was placed in solitary confinement for speaking critically about Trump.

Federal Appeals Court Rejection and Retaliation Claims

A federal judge found Cohen's solitary confinement "retaliatory" and ordered his release. Despite this, Cohen sued for the violation of his constitutional rights. In January, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court's decision against Cohen, stating the law does not entitle him to damages despite his release not making him "whole."

Moreover, U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman dismissed Cohen's claims but acknowledged the fundamental constitutional questions they raised. Subsequently, following the appeals court dismissal, Cohen vowed to take his case to the Supreme Court. Notably, Justice Sonia Sotomayor granted Cohen an extension to file his petition by Wednesday in May.

The Role of Constitutional Rights in Cohen's Case

Cohen cited Judge Liman, arguing that a significant deterrent remedy is necessary beyond mere orders to stop retaliatory actions. The possibility that the federal government can retaliate against critics with imprisonment, without any consequence or check against the officials engaged in such retaliation, presents a chilling prospect. Cohen's petition stresses that the Supreme Court should not turn a blind eye to this profound breach of the contract between a government of limited powers and a free citizenry.

The issue has also become a concern for those opposed to Trump's potential re-election, as he has vowed revenge against political opponents. Recently, Trump suggested that "revenge can be justified," calling for the indictment of members of the House's January 6 committee. However, Trump's allies, including Senator Marco Rubio, have downplayed his remarks, emphasizing that Trump focuses on winning and improving the country, not pursuing political opponents.

National Significance and Chances of Hearing

The Supreme Court accepts about 2 percent of the thousands of cases submitted annually, choosing 100 to 150 cases of national significance.

Despite these odds, Cohen believes his case has a good chance of being heard, stating it is "ripe for the SCOTUS." Cohen's case has drawn attention due to the significant constitutional questions it raises regarding the balance of power and the protection of individual rights.

Cohen's lawsuit against Trump, Barr, and other Justice Department officials stems from his belief that his imprisonment and solitary confinement were retaliatory actions for his outspoken criticism of Trump.

The petition submitted to the Supreme Court addresses whether a sitting president can use federal law enforcement to punish critics. This question could have far-reaching implications for the separation of powers and the protection of free speech in the United States.

Conclusion

Michael Cohen's petition to the Supreme Court seeks to address the fundamental question of whether a U.S. president can weaponize the Department of Justice to punish critics.

The case has significant constitutional implications, raising concerns about the balance of power and protecting individual rights. As the Supreme Court considers whether to take up this case, the outcome could have lasting effects on the interpretation of presidential powers and safeguarding free speech in America.