Law & Courts

Supreme Court Backs Suits Challenging School Policies That Seek Only ‘Nominal’ Damages

By Mark Walsh — March 08, 2021 6 min read
BRIC ARCHIVE

In a significant decision for litigation involving schools and colleges, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled that a request for nominal damages of as little as $1 can keep a lawsuit challenging a government policy alive even when the agency drops the challenged policy.

The 8-1 decision came in a case brought by two community college students who had sought to express their religious faith on their campus. They ran afoul of the policy of Georgia Gwinnett College that sharply limited First Amendment activity to a small “free speech zone.”

When the students sued, the college quickly dropped the restrictions and sought to toss out the students’ lawsuit as moot. Two lower courts ruled for the college, essentially holding that their plea for a court order to end the policy was no longer necessary and that nominal damages would have no practical effect on the situation.

Writing for the majority in Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, Justice Clarence Thomas said that an award of nominal damages can by itself redress, or rectify, a legal injury.

“Because nominal damages are in fact damages paid to the plaintiff, they affect the behavior of the defendant towards the plaintiff and thus independently provide redress,” Thomas said.

“True, a single dollar often cannot provide full redress,” Thomas continued, but the ability of a lawsuit to bring about a partial remedy satisfies “redressability,” which is a key element of the doctrine of legal standing.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. was the lone dissenter, with the case marking the first time during his nearly 16 years on the bench that he issued such a solo dissent in an argued case.

“If nominal damages can preserve a live controversy, then federal courts will be required to give advisory opinions whenever a plaintiff tacks on a request for a dollar,” Roberts said.

A broad array of groups lined up for students

The case was being watched in K-12 education as well in higher-education circles. Many lawsuits are filed against school districts by students and parents challenging a policy or practice, only to have the district change the policy or the student graduate before he or she achieves any “prospective” court action, such as a court injunction to end an unconstitutional policy.

“Without nominal damages, universities and schools can violate students’ rights with impunity, without clarifying the law,” said a brief by, the Alliance Defending Freedom, a Scottsdale, Ariz.-based legal organization that represents the two Georgia college students in the case.

Kristen K. Waggoner, who argued the Georgia case on behalf of students Chike Uzuegbunam and Joseph Bradford, said in a statement that “The Supreme Court has rightly affirmed that government officials should be held accountable for the injuries they cause. … Officials within our public institutions shouldn’t get a free pass for violating constitutional rights on campus or anywhere else.”

ADF also frequently represents students in lawsuits against schools over religious expression. Waggoner said ADF had recently represented a student who was barred by school officials from wearing a protective mask that said “Jesus Loves Me.” It is cases like that one where students and parents may only seek nominal damages (as well as injunctive relief) because “it would be very difficult to prove monetary harm” to claim actual damages, Waggoner said.

A broad array of legal and religious groups had filed friend-of-the-court briefs in support of the two students, including the American Civil Liberties Union, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the Pacific Legal Foundation, and the Christian Legal Society.

“The court’s decision is a win for civil rights,” said Kevin King, a partner with the Covington & Burling law firm in Washington, who filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the students on behalf of Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. “By reaffirming that parties may sue even when a violation does not cause easily identifiable harm, this decision will ensure that the courthouse doors remain open to a wide range of civil-rights plaintiffs.”

Georgia, along with government groups that included the National School Boards Association, had argued that a nominal damages claim becomes moot when intervening events end any injury or threat to a plaintiff’s legal rights.

A ‘narrow holding’ or ‘sweeping expansion’ of judicial role?

Thomas cast his opinion as a narrow holding: That for the purposes of legal standing, “nominal damages provide the necessary redress for a completed violation of a legal right.”

In the Georgia case, Thomas said, it was undisputed that Uzuegbunam experienced a completed violation of his constitutional rights when college officials enforced their speech policies against him. Even after Uzuegbunam had gone through the steps to obtain a permit to speak his religious message in the college’s small free-speech zone, a campus police officer told him to stop because his speech had led to complaints. The officer threatened Uzuegbunam with disciplinary action if he continued, and so the student stopped speaking.

“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,” Thomas said.

(The court did not decide whether the second student, Bradford, may pursue nominal damages because he had chosen not to speak in the face of the college’s restrictions and thus it appeared he had not suffered a completed legal injury, Thomas said in a footnote. A lower court should decide whether the college’s enforcement of its rules against Uzuegbunam also violated Bradford’s rights, the justice said.)

In his dissent, Roberts noted that the two students no longer attend Georgia Gwinnett College, the challenged restrictions no longer exist, and the plaintiffs did not allege any actual damages.

“The case is therefore moot because a federal court cannot grant Uzuegbunam and Bradford any effectual relief whatever,” the chief justice said.

Both Thomas and Roberts delved deeply into English and American common-law history for support of their positions.

“The [majority] is correct to note that plaintiffs at common law often received nominal damages for past violations of their rights,” Roberts said. “Those awards, however, were generally limited to situations in which prevailing plaintiffs tried and failed to prove actual damages.”

“Today’s decision risks a major expansion of the judicial role,” Roberts said. “Until now, we have said that federal courts can review the legality of policies and actions only as a necessary incident to resolving real disputes. Going forward, the judiciary will be required to perform this function whenever a plaintiff asks for a dollar.”

The chief justice suggested that there was one saving grace to majority’s “sweeping exception” to the normal rules of standing.

“Where a plaintiff asks only for a dollar, the defendant should be able to end the case by giving him a dollar, without the court needing to pass on the merits of the plaintiff ’s claims,” Roberts said. “This is a welcome caveat, and it may ultimately save federal courts from issuing reams of advisory opinions.”

Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh joined Thomas’s majority opinion, but in a short concurrence, he said he agreed with Roberts that “that a defendant should be able to accept the entry of a judgment for nominal damages against it and thereby end the litigation without a resolution of the merits.”

Lisa Soronen of the State and Local Legal Center, a Washington group that submitted a friend-of-the-court brief in support of Georgia that was signed by the NSBA and other government groups, said the chief justice’s suggestion that agencies pay the dollar to end certain cases could be palatable to some of them.

“The harder question in some of these cases is that the local government agency is not sure whether its policy violates the law and it doesn’t necessarily want to defend it,” she said. “But it doesn’t want the stamp saying, ‘You are a violator. You did something wrong.’”

Events

This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
School & District Management Webinar
How Schools Can Implement Safe In-Person Learning
In order for in-person schooling to resume, it will be necessary to instill a sense of confidence that it is safe to return. BD is hosting a virtual panel discussing the benefits of asymptomatic screening
Content provided by BD
This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
Student Well-Being Webinar
How Districts Are Centering Relationships and Systemic SEL for Back to School 21-22
As educators and leaders consider how SEL fits into their reopening and back-to-school plans, it must go beyond an SEL curriculum. SEL is part of who we are as educators and students, as well as
Content provided by Panorama Education
This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
Student Achievement Webinar
The Fall K-3 Classroom: What the data imply about composition, challenges and opportunities
The data tracking learning loss among the nation’s schoolchildren confirms that things are bad and getting worse. The data also tells another story — one with serious implications for the hoped for learning recovery initiatives
Content provided by Campaign for Grade-Level Reading

EdWeek Top School Jobs

Teacher Jobs
Search over ten thousand teaching jobs nationwide — elementary, middle, high school and more.
View Jobs
Principal Jobs
Find hundreds of jobs for principals, assistant principals, and other school leadership roles.
View Jobs
Administrator Jobs
Over a thousand district-level jobs: superintendents, directors, more.
View Jobs
Support Staff Jobs
Search thousands of jobs, from paraprofessionals to counselors and more.
View Jobs

Read Next

Law & Courts Student School Board Members Flex Their Civic Muscle in Supreme Court Free-Speech Case
Current and former student school board members add their growing voices to a potentially precedent-setting U.S. Supreme Court case.
7 min read
Image of the Supreme Court.
iStock/Getty
Law & Courts Justice Department Memo Could Stoke State-Federal Fights Over Transgender Students' Rights
Title IX prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in schools, a Justice Department memo says.
3 min read
Stephanie Marty demonstrates against a proposed ban on transgender girls and women from female sports leagues outside the South Dakota governor's mansion in Pierre, S.D. on March 11, 2021.
Stephanie Marty demonstrates against a proposed ban on allowing transgender girls and women to play in female sports leagues outside the South Dakota governor's mansion in Pierre, S.D.
Stephen Groves/AP
Law & Courts Diverse Array of Groups Back Student in Supreme Court Case on Off-Campus Speech
John and Mary Beth Tinker, central to the landmark speech case that bears their name, argue that even offensive speech merits protection.
5 min read
In this photo taken Tuesday, Aug. 27, 2013, Mary Beth Tinker, 61, shows an old photograph of her with her brother John Tinker to the Associated Press during an interview in Washington. Tinker was just 13 when she spoke out against the Vietnam War by wearing a black armband to her Iowa school in 1965. When the school suspended her, she took her free speech case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and won. Her message: Students should take action on issues important to them. "It's better for our whole society when kids have a voice," she says.
In this 2013 photo, Mary Beth Tinker shows a 1968 Associated Press photograph of her with her brother John Tinker displaying the armbands they had worn in school to protest the Vietnam War. (The peace symbols were added after the school protest). The Tinkers have filed a brief in the U.S. Supreme Court supporting a Pennsylvania student who was disciplined for an offensive message on Snapchat.
Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP
Law & Courts Supreme Court Sympathetic to College Athletes' Challenge to NCAA Rules on Education Aid
The justices weighed a case about the definition of amateurism in college athletics that may trickle down to high school and youth sports.
6 min read
BRIC ARCHIVE
iStock/Getty