Michael Cohen, the former attorney of Donald Trump, has formally requested the Supreme Court to review his case against the former president, which revolves around allegations that Trump and federal law enforcement officials engaged in retaliatory actions against Cohen.

Cohen's request to the high court challenges the extent of a president's power over federal agencies to target personal enemies, as Newsweek reports.

Federal Courts Dismiss Cohen's Claims

Cohen's legal battle began when he claimed that he was put in solitary confinement as retribution for speaking critically about Trump.

A federal judge backed this assertion, recognizing the retaliatory nature of his confinement. However, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court decision rejecting Cohen's claims against Trump and former Attorney General Bill Barr, concluding that Cohen had no legal basis for damages.

In his petition to the Supreme Court, Cohen argues that presidents should not have the authority to misuse the Department of Justice to unconstitutionally imprison citizens exercising their First Amendment rights. He fears that unchecked presidential power poses a significant threat to civil liberties.

Case Highlights Constitutional Concerns

U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman dismissed previously filed claims by Cohen but acknowledged their importance in addressing constitutional rights and government accountability.

Cohen's petition underscores the seriousness of his allegations, pointing out the potential for federal government power to intimidate and retaliate against critics without facing any repercussions.

"It's a case ripe for the SCOTUS," Cohen mentioned, expressing his belief in the case's potential acceptance by the Supreme Court, especially given its national significance and implications for government powers.

Supreme Court's Low Acceptance Rate

The Supreme Court famously accepts roughly 2% of the cases it is petitioned to review each year. Despite the slim odds, Cohen remains hopeful, emphasizing the profound breach of trust between a government of limited powers and free citizenry. He argues for a needed deterrent remedy to ensure that such retaliatory actions do not continue unchecked.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor granted Cohen an extension to file his petition by Wednesday, reflecting the court's willingness to at least examine the presented constitutional questions.

Trump's Comments Stir Controversy

Adding to the tension, Trump, according to critics, has indicated a desire for revenge against his political opponents if reelected. This declaration, they say, only amplifies the significance of Cohen's case and the questions it raises about the boundaries of presidential authority.

Despite those allegations against Trump, some of his allies, including Sen. Marco Rubio, have sought to downplay the implications, suggesting that the former president's "vengeance" would be through winning and advancing his political agenda rather than targeting individuals.

Cohen's Broad Concerns About Government Power

"The possibility that the federal government has the power to retaliate against critics with imprisonment, without any consequence for or check against the officials engaged in such retaliation, is a chilling prospect," reads Cohen's petition. He stresses that the Supreme Court should address this profound issue without turning a blind eye.

Cohen's legal journey highlights his significant concerns about the use of federal power and the protections afforded to citizens under the constitution. His petition questions the balance of power within the government and the protections against misuse by those in high office.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Michael Cohen's petition to the Supreme Court seeks to address critical questions about the extent of presidential power and the use of federal agencies against private citizens.

His allegations stem from personal experience with what he claims were retaliatory actions for exercising his constitutional rights.

As the nation awaits the Supreme Court's decision on whether to review the case, the broader implications for government accountability and constitutional rights remain at the forefront of this legal battle.