In Uzuegbunam v. Presczewski, published March 8, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a circuit court decision that a plaintiff could not maintain standing in a lawsuit alleging violation of the right to free speech. A student of a public university was told that even though he had a permit to speak in a designated speaking area on campus, he had to stop speaking because his speech was drawing complaints. He and another student, who was discouraged from speaking, brought suit for injunctive relief and nominal damages based on alleged violation of their First Amendment rights. In response to the suit, the university changed its policy. The university then argued the suit was moot. The students agreed the injunctive relief was moot, but argued that the nominal damages claim conferred standing. The circuit court stated a claim for nominal damages may save a suit for compensatory damages from mootness, but not a suit that never sought compensatory damages.
The Supreme Court majority disagreed. Standing requires an injury in fact, fairly traceable to the challenged conduct, and a remedy that is likely to redress the injury. The third element is the issue here: Whether nominal damages can redress the injury. Examining common law, the court determined that every legal injury causes damage, so that nominal damages are awardable absent evidence of other (compensatory, statutory, or punitive) damages, including where there was no apparent continuing or threatening injury for nominal damages to redress. Therefore, a request for nominal damages satisfies the redressability element of standing where a plaintiff's claim is based on a completed violation of a legal right.
The Chief Justice dissented, and opined that redressability required more than a dollar at stake. Both the Chief Justice and a concurring justice also opined that where only nominal damages are at stake, a defendant should be able to end the lawsuit by paying the nominal damages.
Comments