Petitioner, Michael Cohen, was eligible for release from
federal prison to home confinement for health reasons. But
Respondents conditioned his release on his agreeing to waive
his First Amendment right to criticize Respondent Trump,
who was then the President of the United States. When
Cohen questioned this condition, Respondents revoked his
release, returned him to prison, and placed him in solitary
confinement. Cohen sought a writ of habeas corpus , and the
District Court granted it, finding that his confinement was
unconstitutional and retaliatory. But when Cohen brought
the present action, seeking damages under Bivens v. Six
Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents , 403 U.S. 388 (1971),
the District Court granted Respondents' motion to dismiss.
The court did so even though it recognized that Respondents
had violated his civil liberties and that injunctive relief
and habeas relief did not adequately remedy the harm
he had suffered and would not deter future violations of
c o ns ti tu ti o nal ri g h ts. Th e Sec o n d C ircui t affirm ed an d
subsequently denied Cohen's petition for rehearing en banc.

The questions presented are:

1. Whether a cause of action exists under Bivens
when federal officials imprison a critic in
retaliation for his refusal to waive his right to
free speech and there is no remedy to deter them
from doing so?

2. Whether the retaliatory imprisonment of a
President's critic presents a "most unusual
circumstance" under the Court's ruling in Egbert
v. Boule , 596 U.S. 482 (2022), that necessitates
recognition of a new Bivens claim.

Whether a cause of action exists under Bivens when federal officials imprison a critic in retaliation for his refusal to waive his right to free speech and there is no remedy to deter them from doing so?