The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday in Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, a case challenging speech restrictions at a public Georgia college.
The central legal question before the court is whether claims for nominal, or symbolic, damages -- e.g., an award of $1 -- are made moot if a government body changes the policy under dispute after a lawsuit is filed. The case was filed by Chike Uzuegbunam and Joseph Bradford, both former students at Georgia Gwinnett College, who challenged the college’s speech code after Uzuegbunam was stopped from publicly speaking about his Christian faith and distributing religious leaflets even after he obtained advance permission and reserved a space in the college’s “speech zone.”
The college initially defended its stance but subsequently relaxed its speech restrictions before the merits of the case were decided. The district court dismissed the case, and the students' claims for nominal damages, as moot, a decision upheld by the 11th Circuit of Appeals.
The students argue in their brief to the court that without the ability to press their case to seek nominal damages, they will not be redressed for the constitutional injuries they suffered. Further, the brief states, "holding that a nominal-damages claim is insufficient to continue a case or controversy eliminates any possibility for an attorney-fee award … This would deter litigants and attorneys from pursuing constitutional claims that lack a compensatory damages component, expanding opportunities for government officials to violate constitutional rights."
“Vindicating Chike’s and Joseph’s free-speech rights is particularly crucial here because Respondents’ misconduct occurred on a public-college campus," the students' brief states.
"The 'vigilant protection of constitutional freedoms is nowhere more vital' than at public colleges," the students argued. "Yet nearly 90 percent of public colleges and universities have adopted policies that are either clearly unlawful or constitutionally suspect under the First Amendment … And claims for prospective relief are highly susceptible to mootness because students graduate, and colleges change offending policies -- at least temporarily -- when sued."
"Students also frequently suffer no compensable harm from a college’s speech-suppressing policies. Unless a nominal-damages claim remains justiciable, many students will be deprived of their only remedy."
The attorney general office for the state of Georgia argued the courts were right in dismissing the case as moot, saying that federal courts should concern themselves with "cases and controversies with real stakes for the parties, not abstract disputes."
"Since the college permanently revised the policies petitioners challenged, nominal damages would give them no more than the satisfaction of having a federal court say they are right," the state of Georgia said in its brief to the court.
Free speech groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, and a number of other organizations focused on religious liberty, filed briefs supporting the students' case.
Opinions on Inside Higher Ed
Inside Higher Ed’s Blog U
Inside Higher Ed Careers
Hiring? Post A Job Today!
Browse Faculty Jobs
Browse Administrative Jobs
Browse Executive Administration Jobs
College Pages
Popular Right Now
Higher Education Events Calendar & People
How to write an effective diversity statement (essay)
Advice for students so they don't sound silly in emails (essay)
Biden selects Miguel Cardona as education secretary
First faculty and staff outside health-care fields become eligible for COVID vaccines, but prioritiz
New approaches to discussion boards aim for dynamic online learning experiences
Live Updates: Latest News on Coronavirus and Higher Education
10 strategies to support students and help them learn during the coronavirus crisis (opinion)
We are retiring comments and introducing Letters to the Editor. Letters may be sent to [email protected].
Read the Letters to the Editor »