Term: 2020
Docket: 19-968
Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski
- Pro
19-968 UZUEGBUNAM V. PRECZEWSKI DECISION BELOW: 781 Fed.Appx. 824 CERT. GRANTED 7/9/2020 QUESTION PRESENTED: While a student at Georgia Gwinnett College, Petitioner Chike Uzuegbunam began distributing religious literature on campus. College officials stopped him because he was outside the 0.0015% of campus where "free speech expression" was allowed. When Chike reserved a free speech space and again tried to evangelize, officials stopped him because someone complained which, under College policy, converted Chike's speech to "disorderly conduct" (i .e., "disturb[ing] the peace and/or comfort of person(s)"). Facing discipline if he continued, Chike sued. Another student, Petitioner Joseph Bradford, self-censored after hearing how officials mistreated Chike. Chike and Joseph raised constitutional claims against Respondents' enforcement of their policies, seeking damages and prospective equitable relief to remedy the censorship and chill. After Respondents changed their speech policies post-filing, mooting all equitable claims, the lower courts held that Chike and Joseph did not adequately plead compensatory damages, and their nominal-damages claims were moot. Six circuit s hold that a government's policy change does not moot nominal- damages claims. Two circuits hold such claims moot if the government changes a policy it has never enforced against the plaintiff. The Eleventh Circuit alone holds that, absent compensatory damages, government officials are never liable for violating constitutional rights if they change their policy after being sued. The question presented is: Whether a government's post-filing change of an unconstitutional policy moots nominal-damages claims that vindicate the government's past, completed violation of a plaintiffs constitutional right. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 18-12676
The U.S. Supreme Court case of Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski (2020) revolved around the issue of free speech on college campuses and nominal damages for constitutional violations. The petitioner, Chike Uzuegbunam, a former student at Georgia Gwinnett College was stopped twice from expressing his Christian faith in public areas of the campus due to restrictive school policies regarding freedom of speech. He sued officials at the college alleging violation of his First Amendment rights and sought nominal damages as relief since he had already graduated when the lawsuit began and could no longer benefit from an injunction changing these policies. The lower courts dismissed his claim stating that it was moot because there were no actual or prospective damages involved; however, this decision was reversed by the Supreme Court which held that even if a plaintiff only seeks nominal damages without any actual loss being demonstrated, such claims are not moot under Article III as they can redress completed violations of legal rights.
In the dissenting opinion for UZUEGBUNAM v. PRECZEWSKI, Justice Roberts, joined by Justice Kavanaugh, argued that the case should be dismissed as moot because there was no longer a live dispute between the parties. The college had already changed its free speech policy and both students involved in the lawsuit had graduated. Furthermore, they contended that nominal damages were not enough to keep a case alive if it would otherwise be moot since these do not alter any legal relationship or affect behavior going forward; rather they merely acknowledge an infringement of rights without providing meaningful relief or serving public interest. They also expressed concern about courts being flooded with cases seeking only symbolic victories and warned against turning federal courts into forums for validating subjective feelings of indignation.
