Evangelizing college student can pursue First Amendment suit despite school's policy change, SCOTUS says
Image from Shutterstock.com.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday for an evangelizing college student who sought nominal damages for alleged free speech violations, even though the university changed the policy that harmed him.
The high court ruled 8-1 that plaintiff Chike Uzuegbunam had standing to pursue his claim for nominal damages, even though the Georgia Gwinnett College changed its policy after the lawsuit was filed.
Judge Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. was the only dissenter.
Several groups had supported Uzuegbunam in amicus briefs—including the American Civil Liberties Union—because of the potential effect in other constitutional cases, the Deseret News had reported.
Uzuegbunam twice tried to distribute religious literature at the college in 2016. The first time, Uzuegbunam was told that he could not distribute literature unless he obtained a permit and stayed within a designated free speech zone. Uzuegbunam complied.
A second time, he was told that he had to stop because people had complained. The complaints had triggered a campus policy banning speech that disturbs the peace or comfort of persons.
The Georgia Gwinnett College had contended that the case was moot after the policy change because nominal damages redress continuing or threatened injury, rather than a past injury. The college also claimed that nominal damages are allowed only when the plaintiffs seek compensatory damages.
The Supreme Court majority disagreed.
Thomas said nominal damages were available at common law in similar circumstances. As a result, “we conclude that 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.”
Thomas cautioned that a request for nominal damages does not in itself guarantee entry to federal court because other elements of standing still have to be satisfied.
The Supreme Court did not decide whether a second plaintiff, Joseph Bradford, could pursue nominal damages. Bradford had decided not to speak about religion because of Uzuegbunam’s troubles. The high court said a federal judge should decide whether enforcement of the policy against Uzuegbunam also violated Bradford’s constitutional rights.
In his dissent, Roberts argued that the case is moot because Uzuegbunam and Bradford are no longer students at the college, the challenged restrictions no longer exist, and the students had not alleged actual damages.
“If nominal damages can preserve a live controversy,” Roberts said, “then federal courts will be required to give advisory opinions whenever a plaintiff tacks on a request for a dollar. … The court sees no problem with turning judges into advice columnists.”
The students were represented by Alliance Defending Freedom. The group’s general counsel, Kristen Waggoner, applauded the opinion in a statement.
“Officials within our public institutions shouldn’t get a free pass for violating constitutional rights on campus or anywhere else,” she said. “When such officials engage in misconduct but face no consequences, it leaves victims without recourse, undermines the nation’s commitment to protecting constitutional rights, and emboldens the government to engage in future violations. We are pleased that the Supreme Court weighed in on the side of justice for those victims.”
