Government attorneys defended the decision to remand Michael Cohen to federal custody in a court filing Wednesday, saying that the former personal attorney to President Donald Trump had been "antagonistic" in a July 9 meeting with probation officers and challenged "nearly every provision" of an agreement that would have allowed him to serve out the remainder of his sentence on home confinement.

The filing came just ahead of a planned hearing Thursday morning on Cohen's request that he be immediately released from FCI Otisville. In a lawsuit filed earlier this week, Cohen claimed that he had been sent back to prison in retaliation for his forthcoming tell-all book about his time working as Trump's fixer.

Lawyers from the Manhattan U.S. Attorney's Office argued Wednesday that Cohen's First Amendment retaliation claims were "not supported by the evidence" and denied that anyone from the federal Bureau of Prisons or the Trump administration was involved in the decision to send him back to jail.

The decision, the attorneys said, had been "instigated" by a probation officer and was ultimately approved by a BOP official with "no knowledge" of Cohen's upcoming book.

The filing included a signed declaration from Cohen's probation officer, Adam Pakula, who said Cohen told him he was writing a book "no matter what happens." According to the declaration, Cohen had also told Pakula at the meeting to say hello to "Mr. Barr," which he understood to be a reference to U.S. Attorney General William Barr.

"While I was aware that Cohen was a high-profile inmate, at the time I drafted the [agreement] I was not aware that Cohen was writing a book. I drafted the [agreement] without input from the BOP or anyone in the executive branch," Pakula said.

In his lawsuit, Cohen said BOP officials had conditioned his transition to home confinement on the "unconstitutional demand" that he not engage with "any kind of media" and stay off of social media platforms.

Cohen, who had been released on furlough from prison because of the COVID-19 pandemic May 21, argued that the requirement was designed to prevent the publication of his book, which he had been planning to publish in this fall, just ahead of the Nov. 3 presidential election.

On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein of the Southern District of New York allowed a group of 10 law professors to submit an amicus brief on Cohen's behalf, calling his suit a "straightforward First Amendment case."

Oral argument on Cohen's motion for a temporary restraining order is set for 11 a.m. Thursday.

READ MORE: