In a clear victory for religious liberty, the Supreme Court ruled today that governments can be held accountable for past violations of First Amendment freedoms. The 8-1 ruling in a case entitled Uzuegbunam et al. v. Preczewski et al. held that a “request for nominal damages” may be used to establish legal standing to address a previous violation of a constitutional right.
Justice Thomas delivered the opinion for the court, joined by Justices Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Kavanaugh concurred separately to agree in part with Chief Justice Robert’s dissent. Chief Justice Robert wrote the dissenting opinion alone.
Below are key quotes from both the majority opinion, concurrence, and dissent highlighting how the court reached their decision. Page numbers from the court’s decision are given for each quote, but legal citations are omitted for clarity of reading.
For more details on the religious liberty issues present in this case, see our explainer here.
OPINION: Thomas, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett
“This case asks whether an award of nominal damages by itself can redress a past injury. We hold that it can.” (1)
“[The college] initially attempted to defend the policy, stating that Uzuegbunam’s discussion of his religion “arguably rose to the level of ‘fighting words.’” (2-3)
“The Eleventh Circuit . . . stated that a request for nominal damages can save a case from mootness in certain circumstances, such as where a person pleads but fails to prove an amount of compensatory damages. But, because the students did not request compensatory damages, their plea for nominal damages could not by itself establish standing.” (3)
“The argument that a claim for compensatory damages is a prerequisite for an award of nominal damages also rests on the flawed premise that nominal damages are purely symbolic, a mere judicial token that provides no actual benefit to the plaintiff. . . . But this view is against the weight of the history discussed above, and we have already expressly rejected it. Despite being small, nominal damages are certainly concrete.” (9)
“This is not to say that a request for nominal damages guarantees entry to court. Our holding concerns only redressability.” (11)
“We hold only that, for the purpose of Article III standing, nominal damages provide the necessary redress for a completed violation of a legal right.” (12)
“Applying this principle here is straightforward. For purposes of this appeal, it is undisputed that Uzuegbunam experienced a completed violation of his constitutional rights when respondents enforced their speech policies against him. Because “every violation [of a right] imports damage,” nominal damages can redress Uzuegbunam’s injury even if he cannot or chooses not to quantify that harm in economic terms.” (12)
CONCURRING: Kavanaugh
“I agree with the Court that, as a matter of history and precedent, a plaintiff’s request for nominal damages can satisfy the redressability requirement for Article III standing and can keep an otherwise moot case alive. I write separately simply to note that I agree with the Chief Justice and the Solicitor General that a defendant should be able to accept the entry of a judgment for nominal damages against it and thereby end the litigation without a resolution of the merits.” (1)
DISSENTING: Roberts
“In the Court’s view, nominal damages can save a case from mootness because any amount of money—no matter how trivial—“can redress a past injury.” But an award of nominal damages does not alleviate the harms suffered by a plaintiff, and is not intended to. If nominal damages can preserve a live controversy, then federal courts will be required to give advisory opinions whenever a plaintiff tacks on a request for a dollar. Because I would place a higher value on Article III, I respectfully dissent.” (1)
“We likewise should know that a bare request for nominal damages is not justiciable because the plaintiff cannot “benefit in a tangible way from the court’s intervention.” (4-5)
“To satisfy Article III, redress must alleviate the plaintiff ’s alleged injury in some way, either by compensating the plaintiff for a past loss or by preventing an ongoing or future harm. Nominal damages do not serve these ends where a plaintiff alleges only a completed violation of his rights. They are not intended to approximate the value of tangible or intangible harms, or the deterrent effect required to prevent future misconduct. And they are not calculated with reference to either of these purposes. Because such an award performs no remedial function—and because “[r]elief that does not remedy the injury suffered cannot bootstrap a plaintiff into federal court”—nominal damages cannot preserve a live controversy where a case is otherwise moot.” (9)