In the case of Carey v. Piphus, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that victims of procedural due process violations are entitled to compensation even if they cannot prove actual injury. The case involved a high school student, Joseph Piphus, who was suspended for misconduct without being given an opportunity for a hearing as required by law. Although it was later determined that his suspension was justified based on his behavior, the court held that he should be compensated for the violation of his right to due process itself - not necessarily any harm resulting from this violation. This decision established an important precedent in American constitutional law: when government officials violate individuals' procedural rights under the Constitution's Due Process Clause, those individuals can recover damages even if they suffered no other tangible harm.

In the dissenting opinion for Carey v. Piphus, Justice Rehnquist argued that the majority's decision to award damages without proof of actual injury was a departure from traditional principles of tort law. He contended that this approach could lead to an influx of trivial lawsuits and place an undue burden on school administrators who are trying to maintain discipline in schools. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view that procedural due process rights were absolute, regardless of their context or circumstances surrounding their violation. Instead, he believed these rights should be balanced against other important societal interests such as maintaining order in public schools. In his view, if no real harm resulted from a procedural misstep then there should not be any financial compensation awarded.