Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski
Issues
Does a subsequent change of an unconstitutional policy moot plaintiffs’ claims that the policy violated their constitutional rights when their only remaining claims are for nominal damages?
This case asks the Supreme Court to decide whether a college’s change of an unconstitutional speech policy moots a claim that the original policy violated the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights when their claims are only for nominal damages. Petitioner Chike Uzuegbunam argues that a claim for nominal damages is not mooted by a subsequent policy change because nominal damages serve to vindicate plaintiffs’ past injuries. Uzuegbunam also argues that nominal damages serve an important function because they are distinct from declaratory judgments and there are no alternative remedies for victims of unconstitutional government conduct. Respondent Stanley C. Preczewski counters that nominal damages merely serve a prospective purpose, and therefore nominal-damages claims are moot when a constitutional violation is not reasonably expected to continue. Preczewski also argues that when a constitutional violation is completed, nominal damages only serve to provide declaratory relief and that other remedies, such as declaratory judgments, injunctions, and compensatory damages, can be used to address government violations of a victim’s constitutional rights. This decision will impact how governments respond to constitutional challenges and the administrative burdens imposed on the courts and government defendants.
Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties
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 plaintiff’s constitutional right.
Chike Uzuegbunam and Joseph Bradford were both students attending Georgia Gwinnett College (“GGC”) who shared similar religious beliefs and a desire to express those beliefs publicly. Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski at 3–4. In July 2016, Uzuegbunam was distributing literature that promoted his religious beliefs in an outdoor plaza on campus when a campus police officer approached him. Id. at 3.
Written by
Edited by
Additional Resources
- Adam Liptak, A College’s ‘Free Speech Areas’ Face Supreme Court Review, New York Times (Aug. 17, 2020).
- Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson, Campus Speech Claim Revived as Justices Agree to Hear Challenge, Bloomberg Law (July 9, 2020).