In the case of Memphis Community School District et al. v. Stachura, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a plaintiff in a civil rights lawsuit cannot be awarded damages based on the abstract "value" or "importance" of constitutional rights that have been violated. The case involved a teacher who sued his school district for suspending him after he used controversial teaching materials, alleging violation of his First Amendment rights to free speech and academic freedom. While lower courts had granted him substantial monetary compensation not tied to any actual harm suffered but rather reflecting the importance of these constitutional freedoms, this was overturned by the Supreme Court's decision in 1985 which held such awards inappropriate under Section 1983 -a federal statute allowing individuals to sue state and local officials for violating their constitutional rights-. Instead, it stated compensatory damages must be based on actual injury caused by unlawful conduct.

In the dissenting opinion for Memphis Community School District v. Stachura, Justice Thurgood Marshall argued that damages in civil rights cases should not be limited to actual injury but should also include a component for the value of constitutional rights violated. He contended that limiting compensation only to tangible losses would undermine the deterrent effect of such lawsuits and fail to fully recognize the importance and value of constitutional rights. Furthermore, he criticized majority's reliance on common law tort principles as inappropriate given their failure to adequately address violations of fundamental freedoms guaranteed by constitution. In his view, this approach could potentially discourage victims from pursuing legitimate claims due to inadequate potential recovery which might not cover litigation costs or compensate them fairly for their injuries.