Originally Published: 02 JAN 24 10:56 ET

Updated: 02 JAN 24 12:19 ET

By Kara Scannell, CNN

(CNN) — A federal appeals court on Tuesday rejected Michael Cohen’s attempt to revive his lawsuit against Donald Trump for allegedly retaliating against him for promoting a tell-all book critical of the former president.

Cohen, Trump’s former lawyer and fixer, had sued Trump, former Attorney General Bill Barr, and other Justice Department officials for allegedly violating his constitutional rights when he was thrown back into prison after speaking critically of Trump.

A lower court judge ruled against Cohen, saying that Supreme Court precedent doesn’t allow him to pursue damages as a remedy for his claims. Tuesday, the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals agreed.

Cohen, the appeals court wrote, was able to quickly get an injunction at the time releasing him from prison to home confinement, an action sufficient to meet his claims.

During a hearing last month, Trump attorney Alina Habba argued that Cohen’s remedy was having been released from prison and she argued the judge’s tersely worded decision at the time allowing that release would serve as a deterrent. Habba also argued that despite the claims, Cohen hasn’t provided evidence of Trump’s direct involvement in the decision to send Cohen back to prison.

“The complaint itself does not have facts that Trump did it. It’s a Michael Cohen assumption,” she said.

Cohen’s lawyer Jon Dougherty argued that his lawsuit was needed to hold Trump and other presidents to account.

A “remedy of damages provides necessary deterrence so presidents cannot use prisons as a threat against their critics,” Dougherty told the court, adding, “We are that most unusual circumstance.”

Cohen said on Tuesday he plans to go to the Supreme Court.

“The outcome is wrong if democracy is to prevail,” Cohen said. “A writ of habeas corpus cannot be the only consequence to stop a rogue president from weaponizing the Department of Justice from locking up his/her critics in prison because they refuse to waive their first amendment right. We will be filing a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court.”

Habba described the lawsuit as “frivolous” in a statement.

“We are very pleased with today’s ruling,” she said. “Mr. Cohen’s lawsuit was doomed from its inception. We will continue to fight against any frivolous suits aimed at our client.”