Introduction

The case of Michael D. Cohen v. Donald J. Trump et al., adjudicated by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on January 2, 2024, represents a significant exploration of the boundaries surrounding Bivens actions. Michael D. Cohen, a former attorney and advisor to former President Donald J. Trump, sought damages alleging violations of his Fourth and Eighth Amendment rights. The defendants included high-ranking federal officials, such as the former Attorney General and the warden of a federal correctional institution. This commentary delves into the court's decision to affirm the dismissal of Cohen's claims, examining the legal principles applied, the precedents cited, and the broader implications for constitutional litigation against federal officials.

Summary of the Judgment

In Cohen v. Trump, the plaintiff, Michael D. Cohen, appealed the dismissal of his civil action against several high-level federal officials. Cohen asserted that these defendants retaliated against him for his public statements and his intended publication of a book critical of President Trump. Specifically, he claimed that the revocation of his furlough and subsequent placement in solitary confinement violated his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable seizures and his Eighth Amendment rights against cruel and unusual punishment. The Second Circuit, after applying the stringent criteria for extending Bivens remedies, affirmed the district court's decision to dismiss his claims. The appellate court determined that Cohen's case presented a new context beyond the existing scope of Bivens and that alternative remedies were available and effectively addressed his grievances.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The court extensively referenced pivotal cases that define and limit the scope of Bivens actions. Notably:

• Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) – Established the implied cause of action for constitutional violations by federal agents.
• DAVIS v. PASSMAN, 442 U.S. 228 (1979) – Extended Bivens to a Fifth Amendment claim against a U.S. Congressman.
• Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (1980) – Recognized an Eighth Amendment claim for inmates subjected to deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.
• Egbert v. Boule, 596 U.S. 482 (2022) – Emphasized the limited instances where Bivens can be extended, citing numerous refusals to do so.
• Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U.S. 120 (2017) – Clarified the availability of remedies and influenced the consideration of alternative judicial relief.

These cases collectively underscore the Supreme Court's reluctance to broadly extend Bivens remedies, especially in novel contexts or against new categories of defendants.

Legal Reasoning

The Second Circuit employed a two-step framework derived from Hernandez v. Mesa, 140 S.Ct. 735 (2020), to evaluate the viability of extending Bivens:

1. New Context or Defendants: The court first assessed whether Cohen's claims arose in a context or against defendants not previously addressed by Bivens. It concluded that suing high-level officials like a former President or Attorney General introduces new categories of defendants beyond those considered in earlier Bivens cases.
2. Special Factors: The court then examined factors that might discourage judicial creation of a new Bivens remedy, such as separation of powers concerns and the availability of alternative remedies. The presence of alternative judicial relief, exemplified by Cohen's successful writ of habeas corpus, further negated the necessity for a Bivens action.

Additionally, the court highlighted that even superficial similarities to established cases (e.g., Carlson v. Green) do not suffice to warrant an extension of Bivens if substantive differences exist.

Impact

The affirmation in Cohen v. Trump underscores the judiciary's cautious approach to expanding Bivens remedies. It signals that constitutional claims against high-level federal officials, especially in contexts not previously contemplated by the Supreme Court, are unlikely to succeed under Bivens. This decision reinforces the importance of seeking alternative legal avenues for redress and highlights the challenges plaintiffs face when alleging constitutional violations by top-tier government officials.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Conclusion

The Second Circuit's decision in Cohen v. Trump reinforces the judiciary's strict limitations on extending Bivens remedies to new contexts and categories of defendants. By affirming the dismissal of Cohen's claims, the court highlighted the necessity of alternative legal avenues and the high threshold for establishing a Bivens action. This judgment serves as a pivotal reference for future cases involving constitutional claims against federal officials, emphasizing the enduring challenges plaintiffs may encounter in seeking redress through Bivens.