Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, 592 U.S. ___ (2021)
Uzuegbunam, a Georgia Gwinnett College student, talked with interested students and handed out religious literature on campus until a campus police officer informed him that campus policy prohibited distributing religious materials outside two areas designated for that purpose. Speaking about religion or distributing religious materials in those areas required a permit. Uzuegbunam obtained a permit and tried to speak in a free speech zone. A campus officer again asked him to stop, saying that people had complained. Campus policy prohibited using the free speech zone to say anything that “disturbs the peace and/or comfort of person(s).” Uzuegbunam complied. Another student decided not to speak about religion because of these events. The students sought injunctive relief and nominal damages. College officials discontinued the challenged policies. The Eleventh Circuit held that the students’ plea for nominal damages could not establish standing, absent a request for compensatory damages.
The Supreme Court reversed. A request for nominal damages satisfies the redressability element necessary for Article III standing where a plaintiff’s claim is based on a completed violation of a legal right. To establish Article III standing, the Constitution requires a plaintiff to identify an injury in fact that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct and to seek a remedy likely to redress that injury. Under common law, a party whose rights are invaded can recover nominal damages without furnishing evidence of actual damages, without a plea for compensatory damages. Nominal damages are not purely symbolic. One dollar may not provide full redress, but the partial remedy satisfies the redressability requirement and constitutes relief on the merits. In addition to redressability, the plaintiff must establish the other elements of standing and satisfy other relevant requirements, such as pleading a cognizable cause of action.
A request for nominal damages satisfies the redressability element necessary for Article III standing where a plaintiff’s claim is based on a completed violation of a legal right.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
Uzuegbunam et al. v. Preczewski et al.
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eleventh circuit
No. 19–968. Argued January 12, 2021—Decided March 8, 2021
Petitioners are former students of Georgia Gwinnett College who wished to exercise their religion by sharing their faith on campus while enrolled there. In 2016, Chike Uzuegbunam talked with interested students and handed out religious literature on campus grounds. Uzuegbunam stopped after a campus police officer informed him that campus policy prohibited distributing written religious materials outside areas designated for that purpose. A college official later explained to Uzuegbunam that he could speak about his religion or distribute materials only in two designated speech areas on campus, and even then only after securing a permit. But when Uzuegbunam obtained the required permit and tried to speak in a free speech zone, a campus police officer again asked him to stop, this time saying that people had complained about his speech. Campus policy at that time prohibited using the free speech zone to say anything that “disturbs the peace and/or comfort of person(s).” The officer told Uzuegbunam that his speech violated campus policy because it had led to complaints, and the officer threatened Uzuegbunam with disciplinary action if he continued. Uzuegbunam again complied with the order to stop speaking. Another student who shares Uzuegbunam’s faith, Joseph Bradford, decided not to speak about religion because of these events. Both Uzuegbunam and Bradford sued certain college officials charged with enforcement of the college’s speech policies, arguing that these policies violated the First Amendment. As relevant here, the students sought injunctive relief and nominal damages. The college officials ultimately chose to discontinue the challenged policies rather than to defend them, and they sought dismissal on the ground that the policy change left the students without standing to sue. The parties agreed that the policy change rendered the students’ request for injunctive relief moot, but disputed whether the students had standing to maintain the suit based on their remaining claim for nominal damages. The Eleventh Circuit held that while a request for nominal damages can sometimes save a case from mootness, such as where a person pleads but fails to prove an amount of compensatory damages, the students’ plea for nominal damages alone could not by itself establish standing.
Held: A request for nominal damages satisfies the redressability element necessary for Article III standing where a plaintiff’s claim is based on a completed violation of a legal right. Pp. 3–12.
(a) To establish Article III standing, the Constitution requires a plaintiff to identify an injury in fact that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct and to seek a remedy likely to redress that injury. Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 338. The dispute here concerns whether the remedy Uzuegbunam sought—nominal damages—can redress the completed constitutional violation that he alleges occurred when campus officials enforced the speech policies against him. The Court looks to the forms of relief awarded at common law to determine whether nominal damages can redress a past injury. The prevailing rule at common law was that a party whose rights are invaded can always recover nominal damages without furnishing evidence of actual damage. By permitting plaintiffs to pursue nominal damages whenever they suffered a personal legal injury, the common law avoided the oddity of privileging small economic rights over important, but not easily quantifiable, nonpecuniary rights. Pp. 3–8.
(b) The common law did not require a plea for compensatory damages as a prerequisite to an award of nominal damages. Nominal damages are not purely symbolic. They are instead the damages awarded by default until the plaintiff establishes entitlement to some other form of damages. A single dollar often will not provide full redress, but the partial remedy satisfies the redressability requirement. Church of Scientology of Cal. v. United States, 506 U.S. 9, 13. Respondents’ argument that a plea for compensatory damages is necessary to confer jurisdiction also does not square with established principles of standing. And unlike an award of attorney’s fees and costs which may be the byproduct of a successful suit, an award of nominal damages constitutes relief on the merits. Pp. 8–11.
(c) A request for redress in the form of nominal damages does not guarantee entry to court. In addition to redressability, the plaintiff must establish the other elements of standing and satisfy all other relevant requirements, such as pleading a cognizable cause of action. Uzuegbunam experienced a completed violation of his constitutional rights when respondents enforced their speech policies against him. Nominal damages can redress Uzuegbunam’s injury even if he cannot or chooses not to quantify that harm in economic terms. The Court does not decide whether Bradford can pursue nominal damages and leaves for the District Court to determine whether Bradford has established a past, completed injury. Pp. 11–12.
781 Fed. Appx. 824, reversed and remanded.
Thomas, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, JJ., joined. Kavanaugh, J., filed a concurring opinion. Roberts, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion.
JUDGMENT ISSUED. |
Judgment REVERSED and REMANDED. Thomas, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, JJ., joined. Kavanaugh, J., filed a concurring opinion. Roberts, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion. |
Argued. For petitioners: Kristen K. Waggoner, Scottsdale, Ariz.; and Hashim M. Mooppan, Counselor to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondents: Andrew A. Pinson, Atlanta, Ga. |
Reply of petitioners Chike Uzuegbunam, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
CIRCULATED |
Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED. |
The record from the U.S. Dist. Court of Northern Dist. of Georgia (Atlanta) is electronic and located on PACER. |
Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 11th Circuit. |
The record from the U.S.C.A. 11th Circuit is electronic and located on PACER. |
Brief amici curiae of District of Columbia, et al. filed. |
SET FOR ARGUMENT on Tuesday, January 12, 2021. |
Brief amici curiae of National Conference of State Legislatures, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
Brief of respondents Stanley Preczewski, et al. filed. |
Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed. |
Brief amici curiae of General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, et al. filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of The Islam and Religious Freedom Action Team of the Religious Freedom Institute filed. |
Brief amici curiae of American Civil Liberties Union, et al. filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of The Rutherford Institute filed. |
Brief amici curiae of Foundation for Individual Rights in Education and Cato Institute filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Frederick Douglass Foundation, Inc. filed. |
Brief amici curiae of United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, et al. filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of United States filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Child Evangelism Fellowship, Inc. filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Institute for Free Speech filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Jewish Coalition for Religious Liberty filed. |
Amicus brief of American Humanist Association not accepted for filing. (October 06, 2020 - Corrected version submitted) |
Brief amicus curiae of American Humanist Association filed. (October 7, 2020) |
Brief amici curiae of Justice and Freedom Fund, et al. filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Christian Legal Society filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Inc. filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of CatholicVote.org Education Fund filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Public Citizen filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Young Americans for Liberty, Inc. filed. |
Brief amici curiae of Pacific Legal Foundation, et al. filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Foundation for Moral Law filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Council on American-Islamic Relations filed. |
Brief of petitioners Chike Uzuegbunam, et al. filed. |
Joint appendix filed. |
Joint motion to further extend the time to file the briefs on the merits granted. The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits is extended to and including September 22, 2020. The time to file respondents' brief on the merits is further extended to and including November 19, 2020. |
Joint motion for a further extension of time to file the briefs on the merits filed. |
Joint motion to extend the time to file the briefs on the merits granted. The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits is extended to and including September 8, 2020. The time to file respondents' brief on the merits is extended to and including October 22, 2020. |
Blanket Consent filed by Respondent, Stanley Preczewski, et al. |
Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, Chike Uzuegbunam, et al. |
Joint motion for an extension of time to file the briefs on the merits filed. |
Petition GRANTED. |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 7/8/2020. |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/21/2020. |
Reply of petitioners Chike Uzuegbunam, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
Brief of respondents Stanley Preczewski, et al. in opposition filed. |
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including April 22, 2020. |
Motion to extend the time to file a response from April 8, 2020 to April 22, 2020, submitted to The Clerk. |
Brief amicus curiae of Foundation for Individual Rights in Education filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of The Islam and Religious Freedom Action Team of the Religious Freedom Institute filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of CatholicVote.org Education Fund filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Americans for Prosperity Foundation filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of American Humanist Association filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Young Americans for Liberty, Inc. filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Jewish Coalition for Religious Liberty filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Foundation for Moral Law filed. |
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including April 8, 2020. |
Blanket Consent filed by Respondents, Stanley Preczewski, et al. |
Motion to extend the time to file a response from March 4, 2020 to April 8, 2020, submitted to The Clerk. |
Blanket Consent filed by Petitioners, Chike Uzuegbunam, et al. |
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 4, 2020) |
Application (19A461) granted by Justice Thomas extending the time to file until January 31, 2020. |
Application (19A461) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from December 3, 2019 to January 31, 2020, submitted to Justice Thomas. |