Christian student wins Supreme Court case after college stopped him from handing out fliers in ‘free speech zone’

In Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, Chike Uzuegbunam was a student who attended Georgia Gwinnett College, a public institution. While a student there, administrators told him he could not distribute religious pamphlets on school grounds, even when he was in a school-designated "free speech zone." As happens often with public institutions, after he and another student filed a lawsuit against the school for violating their free speech rights, the college changed its policy.

Several lower courts found the case moot, as the policy had been changed, and Uzuegbunam was left with little redress despite the fact that he'd experienced a real violation of his constitutional rights. The Supreme Court heard the case and eight of the nine justices agreed that Uzuegbunam could pursue even nominal damages for the violation, showing the importance of his constitutional rights.

In his opinion, Thomas wrote:

"Applying this principle here is straightforward. 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. Because "every violation [of a right] imports damage," Webb, 29 F. Cas., at 509, nominal damages can redress Uzuegbunam's injury even if he cannot or chooses not to quantify that harm in economic terms.*"

Kavanaugh wrote:

"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. I write separately simply to note that I agree with THE CHIEF JUSTICE and the Solicitor General 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."

In his dissent, Roberts argued that since the government changed its policy, the students' request for damages was moot. "Uzuegbunam and Bradford 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."

In a statement the day the Supreme Court heard his case, January 12, Uzuegbunam said, "Colleges and universities are supposed to be places where we are free to explore and debate ideas, but my college silenced me and are getting away with it… Now that they have heard my story, I am hopeful that the Supreme Court will affirm my rights and the rights of all Americans, and that courts should hold officials accountable for violating our constitutional rights."

SCOTUSblog summarized the issue this way:

"Because the student showed that he was injured and that his injury resulted from the officials' conduct, the question before the Supreme Court was whether the student meets the third criterion to have a legal right to sue: Is he seeking a remedy that is likely to correct the constitutional violation in the case? In an opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas, the court ruled that nominal damages – an award that is small or largely symbolic—can provide a remedy for a past injury and prevent the case from becoming moot."

In a statement, Kristen Waggoner, the attorney who argued the case on behalf of Alliance Defending Freedom said,

"The Supreme Court has rightly affirmed that government officials should be held accountable for the injuries they cause. When public officials violate constitutional rights, it causes serious harm to the victims. Groups representing diverse ideological viewpoints supported our clients because the threat to our constitutionally protected freedoms doesn't stop with free speech rights or a college campus.

“Officials within our public institutions shouldn't get a free pass for violating constitutional rights on campus or anywhere else. 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."