The plaintiff is not at risk of future harm the issues have been resolved and thus the case is moot.
Keyboard shortcut for subscript on tumblr free#
In this case, however, the college points out that it has “permanently” revised its free speech policies.
The only way a nominal damages-only case can be heard, according to the college, is if the plaintiffs are at risk of continued harm or if the defendants could repeat the same actions complained of in the case. Georgia Gwinnett College argues that the case must be dismissed because a court cannot hear it with only a nominal damages claim. A plaintiff seeking nominal damages is seeking relief from a past wrong, which is not erased just because the defendant stopped the action. Uzuegbunam distinguishes a nominal damages award from a declaratory judgement, stating that nominal damages are retrospective relief, like compensatory damages. Uzuegbunam points out Supreme Court precedent purporting to show that a nominal damages award changes the “the legal relationship between the parties by modifying the defendant’s behavior in a way that directly benefits the plaintiff.” Farrar v. And no prospective change to a defendant’s policies or conduct can remedy or undo past, completed injuries. Damages claims-including claims for nominal damages-offer effectual relief: they remedy past injuries and permanently alter the parties’ relationship. According to Uzuegbunam, Article III only requires that a case must be able to provide a remedy, and nominal damages is a remedy because it is “effectual relief.”Ī case is moot only when it is impossible for a court to grant any effectual relief. On appeal, Uzuegbunam argues that a federal court can still hear a case just to provide nominal damages. But a request for nominal damages alone cannot keep a case alive. Nominal damages could piggy-back off the request for compensatory damages. The lower court said that if Uzuegbunam had properly requested (and was seeking to prove) compensatory damages, or more substantial monetary relief, based on the harm he experienced, then the case would still be heard. The lower court ruled that the case is “moot” (must be dismissed) because a claim for nominal damages is not adequate for the case to be a real “case or controversy” under Article III. Nominal is barely real, right? But are nominal damages enough to keep a case from being moot? That’s the question in this case. He only asked for nominal damages in the case. However Uzuegbunam didn’t properly ask for compensatory damages. Unless Uzuegbunam had suffered some injury and needed monetary relief. Now that the school removed the policies at issue in this case, it would seem the case doesn’t need resolution anymore. That’s what it says in Article III of the Constitution. They only take cases that need resolution. Article III and Mootnessįederal courts don’t take theoretical cases. The school changed the policies and resolved the issues Uzuegbunam complained of. He asked for nominal damages for having dealt with the wrongful policies.īefore the case was tried, the school gave in. He asked the court to enjoin the school from enforcing the policies. Uzuegbunam asked the court to issue declarative injunctions that the school’s policies violate the Constitution. He alleged the school’s speech and expression policies violated his First Amendment rights. Uzuegbunam had not reserved for “open air speaking,” so the police issued him a warning that he was in violation of the school policies and must stop. The officer said the police received calls about Uzuegbunam’s activities. He went about his expressive activities at his reserved spot. And those zones usually had to be reserved in advance. Uzuegbunam would have to go to one of two designated “speech zones” to do that.
Campus Police approached him and said he wasn’t allowed to distribute the materials there. Opinion Below: Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals Student Wants Nominal Relief From College For Restrictive Speech PoliciesĬhike Uzuegbunam, a college student at Georgia Gwinnett College, was handing out leaflets relating to his religious beliefs at an outdoor plaza on the college campus.
Respondent Brief: Stanley Preczewski, et al. Petitioner Brief: Chike Uzuegbunam, et al.
0 kommentar(er)
