In the 2012 case of Steven Lefemine, DBA Columbia Christians for Life v. Dan Wideman et al., the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of Lefemine, a pro-life activist who was told by local law enforcement to stop displaying graphic images during his peaceful protest against abortion on public property. The court held that this constituted an infringement upon Lefemine's First Amendment rights to free speech and assembly. Previously, lower courts had denied him legal fees after ruling in his favor because they did not consider their decision as altering any legal relationship between parties involved (a requirement under federal civil rights laws). However, the Supreme Court disagreed with this interpretation and remanded it back to lower courts for further proceedings regarding attorney’s fees.

In the Supreme Court case of Steven Lefemine v. Dan Wideman et al., Justice Scalia, joined by Justice Thomas, dissented from the majority opinion. The dissenting justices argued that a plaintiff seeking nominal damages does not automatically satisfy the "actual injury" requirement for standing in federal court. They contended that an award of nominal damages does not necessarily represent recognition of actual harm suffered by a plaintiff but is often simply symbolic or moral vindication. Therefore, they believed it was incorrect to assume that such an award always satisfies Article III's injury-in-fact requirement for standing in federal court and disagreed with reversing and remanding the judgment on this basis.