Former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen's legal battle against the ex-president has come to an end.

The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected Michael Cohen's appeal to revive his lawsuit against former President Donald Trump, as reported by Fox News.

Cohen, who once served as Trump's personal attorney, had claimed that his imprisonment in 2020 was an act of retaliation for publishing a book critical of the former president. The lawsuit sought monetary damages from Trump, former U.S. Attorney General William Barr, federal prison officials, and the federal government.

Cohen's Claims of Retaliatory Imprisonment Dismissed

Cohen's legal team argued that his return to prison in July 2020 was orchestrated by Trump and Justice Department officials as punishment for writing his tell-all book, "Disloyal: A Memoir: The True Story of the Former Personal Attorney to President Donald J. Trump."

The former lawyer had been released to home confinement during the COVID-19 pandemic but was sent back to prison after refusing to sign an agreement limiting his social media posts and press contacts.

In his petition to the Supreme Court, Cohen emphasized the importance of holding presidents accountable:

Presidents are not kings. This case represents the principle that presidents and their subordinates can lock away critics of the executive without consequence. That cannot be the law in the country the Founders thought they created when they threw off the yoke of the monarch.

Despite these arguments, two lower courts had already ruled against Cohen's initial claim, basing their decisions on a narrow interpretation of a 1971 Supreme Court ruling.

Trump's Legal Team Celebrates Victory

Alina Habba, Trump's attorney, expressed satisfaction with the Supreme Court's decision, stating:

Michael Cohen has exhausted every avenue of his pathetic attempt to drag my client into court time and time again. As expected, the Supreme Court has correctly denied Michael Cohen's petition and he must finally abandon his frivolous and desperate claims.

The Supreme Court's rejection of Cohen's appeal came without comment, offering no further insight into their decision-making process.

Previous Judicial Rulings on Cohen's Imprisonment

It's worth noting that in 2020, U.S. Federal Court Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein had found that the Trump administration violated Cohen's First Amendment rights when they returned him to prison after his release to home confinement.

Judge Hellerstein stated during a hearing that the purpose of transferring Cohen back to jail was retaliatory, specifically citing Cohen's desire to publish a book and discuss it on social media.

However, this earlier ruling did not prevent the dismissal of Cohen's subsequent lawsuit against Trump and others involved in his re-imprisonment.

Cohen's Legal Troubles and Trump Connection

Cohen had served three years in prison for several federal crimes related to his work for Trump, including lying to Congress.

His relationship with the former president has been tumultuous since he turned against Trump and began cooperating with investigations into the former president's affairs.

The rejection of this appeal marks the end of Cohen's attempts to seek legal redress against Trump through this particular lawsuit. It remains to be seen whether Cohen will pursue other legal avenues or if this decision will effectively conclude his legal battles with the former president.

Implications for Executive Power and Accountability

The Supreme Court's decision not to hear Cohen's case may have broader implications for the limits of executive power and the ability of former government officials to be held accountable for alleged retaliatory actions.

While the court did not provide reasoning for its rejection, the decision could be interpreted as a reluctance to expand the scope of lawsuits against federal officials for constitutional violations.

As the legal drama between Cohen and Trump comes to a close, the case highlights the ongoing tensions between presidential authority, individual rights, and the justice system's role in mediating disputes involving high-profile political figures.