SCofUS: “Because 'every violation [of a right] imports damage,' nominal damages”award

[PAMedic=F|A=]

The case was about free speech, religious liberty, but what caught by eye was the 8 to 1 ruling, and the statement that EVERY violation of a right by a government official caused harm and that restitution is merited even if no finical harm occurred. I think the courts are getting tired of government over reach and them constantly having to say the same thing.




Supreme Court sides with Christian students silenced on Georgia campus

Mon, March 8, 2021, 8:16 AM
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday sided with a former Georgia college student who sued his school after it prevented him from expressing religious views in a free-speech zone on campus.

The 8-1 decision, authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, said that Chike Uzuegbunam -- 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 Uzuegbunam subsequently graduated.

In a very rare alignment of votes, Chief Justice John Roberts was the lone dissenting justice in the case.

"It is undisputed that Uzuegbunam experienced a completed violation of his constitutional rights when respondents enforced their speech policies against him," wrote Justice Thomas. "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."

Nominal damages -- even as little as $1, for example -- are awarded in cases where a person has been harmed by illegal conduct but not suffered significant financial loss. First Amendment advocates called the decision a win for free speech and religious expression.

PHOTO: The Guardian or Authority of Law, created by sculptor James Earle Fraser, rests on the side of the U.S. Supreme Court on Sept. 28, 2020, in Washington, D.C. (Al Drago/Getty Images)
PHOTO: The Guardian or Authority of Law, created by sculptor James Earle Fraser, rests on the side of the U.S. Supreme Court on Sept. 28, 2020, in Washington, D.C. (Al Drago/Getty Images)
“When public officials violate constitutional rights, it causes serious harm to the victims," said Kristen Waggoner, an attorney for Alliance Defending Freedom, which represented Uzuegbunam in the case. "When such officials engage in misconduct but face no consequences, it leaves victims without recourse, undermines the nation’s commitment to protecting constitutional rights, and emboldens the government to engage in future violations. We are pleased that the Supreme Court weighed in on the side of justice for those victims.”

Justices Neil Gorsuch, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor all joined Thomas in the opinion, which reversed two lower court rulings that agreed with the school in calling the case moot.

"I agree with the Court that, as a matter of history and precedent, a plaintiff’s request for nominal damages can satisfy the redressability requirement for Article III standing and can keep an otherwise moot case alive," Justice Kavanaugh wrote in a concurring opinion.

Roberts argued that the courts had no place getting involved in the dispute because it was no longer an issue.

Uzuegbunam and a fellow evangelical Christian student suing the school, Roberts wrote, "are no longer students at the college. The challenged restrictions no longer exist. And the petitioners have not alleged actual damages. The case is therefore moot because a federal court cannot grant Uzuegbunam and Bradford any effectual relief whatever.'"

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/supreme-co...161600821.html

[streaker69]

Let me know when they make the same kind of strong statement about the 2nd, or the 4th.

[85MikeTPI]

"Chief Justice John Roberts was the lone dissenting justice in the case"

Still worried about those photos I see....

[PAMedic=F|A=]

Let me know when they make the same kind of strong statement about the 2nd, or the 4th.

Agreed, but the ruling said *every violation of a right* not *every violation of the 1st amendment*.

[streaker69]

Agreed, but the ruling said *every violation of a right* not *every violation of the 1st amendment*.

I won't hold my breath that they come to the same conclusion in any upcoming 2nd or 4th cases. I have zero confidence in any part of the government to do the right thing.

[free]

A govt violation of rights should be statutory damages of a minimum of $100K/person/occurrence, payable by the jurisdiction responsible.

Furthermore, because a violation of someone's rights diminishes the rights of ALL, an additional $5/person/occurrence should be due to every single citizen of America.

Let's see the law, Congress. Unless of course you don't believe in the rights of the people.

[KPShooting]

"I agree with the Court that, as a matter of history and precedent, a plaintiff*s request for nominal damages can satisfy the redressability requirement for Article III standing and can keep an otherwise moot case alive," Justice Kavanaugh wrote in a concurring opinion.

So if the plantiffs were only asking for a $1 in damages when they sued about the NY SAFE act it could have gone to court and dismissed because it was made moot?

[ideaman]

I would like to know. What has to happen for the people to legally take up arms against politicians? Must they go to courts? It doesn't seem right for a hand-full of people to take up arms. I notice politicians are constantly violating Declaration of Rights or Constitution.

When some politicians claim a violation against the Constitution etc, Doesn't a governor etc. bounded to check it out? NJ Gov Murphy when Tucker Carlson questioned Murphy said, "it's above my pay grade."

[PAMedic=F|A=]

So if the plantiffs were only asking for a $1 in damages when they sued about the NY SAFE act it could have gone to court and dismissed because it was made moot?

What this says is the dismissal was false and the case should be re-filed. I*d go so far as to say the courts an judges involved in the previous case should be added as defendants.

[PAMedic=F|A=]

So if the plantiffs were only asking for a $1 in damages when they sued about the NY SAFE act it could have gone to court and dismissed because it was made moot?

What this says is the dismissal was false and the case should be re-filed. I’d go so far as to say the courts an judges involved in the previous case should be added as defendants.