Legal Issue(s): Free Speech
Court: U.S. Supreme Court
Case Status: Success
Center's Role: Amicus
Case Description
In 2016, Georgia Gwinnett College officials twice stopped student Chike Uzuegbunam from peacefully sharing his Christian faith with fellow students on his college campus. First, officials said he needed to get advance permission to use one of two tiny speech zones that made up far less than 1% of the campus and were only open 10% of the week. Despite following these policies, Chike was again prevented from speaking. When Chike challenged the unconstitutional policies, Georgia Gwinnett argued that Chike’s speech should receive no constitutional protection, changed its policy, and claimed it should be able to avoid any penalty for violating Chike’s free speech rights. Two lower courts agreed. Chike then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
CLS filed an amicus brief in support of Chike, in which it argued that the award of nominal damages is an important form of judicial relief that provides a remedy to people whose rights have been violated. Nominal damages are a particularly important form of relief for college students, such as Chike, whose rights are violated because they are likely to graduate in the years that it takes cases to wind their way through the court system. If relief for past violations (nominal damages) is tied to relief preventing future violations (injunctive and declaratory relief), then many students will be left with no ability to turn to the courts when their constitutional rights are violated.
On March 8, 2021, the Court sided with Chike. The 8-1 decision, authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, said that Chike – who was silenced by Georgia Gwinnett College officials even after he had obtained a permit to proselytize and handout religious literature – can seek nominal damages despite the fact that the school ultimately changed course and Chike subsequently graduated.
“For purposes of this appeal, it is undisputed that Uzuegbunam experienced a completed violation of his constitutional rights when respondents enforced their speech policies against him,” Thomas wrote. “Because ‘every violation [of a right] imports damage,’ … nominal damages can redress Uzuegbunam’s injury even if he cannot or chooses not to quantify that harm in economic terms.”
The Supreme Court reversed the Eleventh Circuit panel’s opinion, holding that “an award of nominal damages by itself can redress a past injury.” The Eleventh Circuit then reversed the district court’s dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision.
Finding themselves back in the district court, on June 22, 2021, Defendants sought to obtain dismissal of the case by depositing nominal damages of $2 with the court and having it paid over to Plaintiffs. On December 22, 2021, the district court held that the proposed actions by Defendants would not moot the case and ruled the lawsuit should move forward on its merits. In so doing, the district court ruled that government officials cannot escape the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision that they can be held accountable for violating constitutionally protected freedoms.
