Supreme Court -- over John Roberts' sole dissent -- rules in favor of student in First Amendment ca

[NewYorkExpress]

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/08/politics/supreme-court-free-speech-college-religion-case-chike-uzuegbunam/index.html

The Supreme Court on Monday revived a lawsuit brought by a former student seeking to hold his state university accountable for violating his First Amendment rights when it barred him from speaking about his religion and distributing religious literature.

Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for an 8-1 majority, allowed the lawsuit to continue even though the student, Chike Uzuegbunam, who has since graduated, was only asking for $1 in damages and the school's policy has changed.

Thomas wrote that it was "undisputed" that Uzuegbunam's rights were violated and that he could proceed with the case even though he was only seeking nominal damages.
Chief Justice John Roberts, in an unusual lone dissent, said he thought the dispute was now moot. Roberts stressed that the student had graduated and that the challenged restrictions "no longer exist."

"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 wrote.

......

In 2016, Uzuegbunam, an evangelical Christian who was a student at Georgia Gwinnett College, was standing on a stool in a "speech area" at his school, talking about his religion and passing out religious literature. He had followed the school's direction and reserved a spot designated by the school as a "speech zone."
But he was approached by campus police who said there had been complaints about his speech. The officer said the space did not allow "open air speaking" and that he had violated the school's code of conduct because his speech constituted disorderly conduct.

Uzuegbunam and a fellow student sued in December 2016, claiming that the college's speech policies violated the First Amendment. As the suit was pending, the school changed its policy so that students generally would be allowed to "speak" anywhere on campus without a permit.

 They asked a district court to dismiss the case, noting that Uzuegbunam had graduated. Lower courts agreed, holding that he could not ask for nominal damages after the school changed its policy.

But lawyers for Uzuegbunam, supported by civil rights groups, asked the Supreme Court to allow such lawsuits to go forward to ensure the government can be held accountable and that there couldn't be a future policy change. For them, it was not about the money, but the injury.

Are you surprised by the justice's positions? What about Roberts not joining the other conservative justices? What do you make of that?

[Coolface Sock #42069]

I don’t like Roberts’s logic. Litigation always takes a long time, and if the fact that it’s been a long time since the event happened is an acceptable excuse, then there will be many cases where relief will not be granted when it should be. Also if institutions can simply rescind policies and have the case dismissed then it becomes very hard to set court precedent against such policies.

[Skill and Chance]

Is this Roberts' first lone dissent?  That seems like something he would strenuously try to avoid. 

[Donerail]

Is this Roberts' first lone dissent?  That seems like something he would strenuously try to avoid. 

Indeed it is.

[Kingpoleon]

I don’t like Roberts’s logic. Litigation always takes a long time, and if the fact that it’s been a long time since the event happened is an acceptable excuse, then there will be many cases where relief will not be granted when it should be. Also if institutions can simply rescind policies and have the case dismissed then it becomes very hard to set court precedent against such policies.

Roberts is trying to minimize the amount of Court cases, however possible. I wouldn’t have been surprised if Gorsuch had joined him, considering he wrote a now famous article suggesting the courts should lower the number of court cases to keep from resolving political disputes.

[brucejoel99]

Thomas' opinion also managed to completely dunk on Roberts by using his own words against him:

[lfromnj]

He isn't just suing to stop the damages but instead he is clearly suing for payment for damages inflicted against him which has already happened despite a change in policy.

[Donerail]

He isn't just suing to stop the damages but instead he is clearly suing for payment for damages inflicted against him which has already happened despite a change in policy.

He's not suing for payment, he's suing for the court to vindicate him by showing that he was legally in the right. The "payment" here is a token sum ($1, a penny, something like that). Not really related to any sort of damages inflicted upon him, and not intended to make him whole.

[Hammy]

Kind of funny Roberts of all people would be the sole dissent on anything given he seems to be serving as a swing vote of sorts in the court's makeup.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I don’t like Roberts’s logic. Litigation always takes a long time, and if the fact that it’s been a long time since the event happened is an acceptable excuse, then there will be many cases where relief will not be granted when it should be. Also if institutions can simply rescind policies and have the case dismissed then it becomes very hard to set court precedent against such policies.

But is there already precedent?  I haven't looked into the specifics of this case, but I'd doubt if there weren't. On its face, this case seems like a waste of court time. I have to wonder which justices (other than Thomas) thought this case was worth granting cert to.

[brucejoel99]

I don’t like Roberts’s logic. Litigation always takes a long time, and if the fact that it’s been a long time since the event happened is an acceptable excuse, then there will be many cases where relief will not be granted when it should be. Also if institutions can simply rescind policies and have the case dismissed then it becomes very hard to set court precedent against such policies.

But is there already precedent?  I haven't looked into the specifics of this case, but I'd doubt if there weren't. On its face, this case seems like a waste of court time. I have to wonder which justices (other than Thomas) thought this case was worth granting cert to.

Well, it was Thomas writing for an 8-1 majority (with only Kavanaugh going so far as to author a concurrence), so I have to imagine a good chunk of said majority did so as well. Roberts obviously didn't & mayyybe Kavanaugh didn't + Barrett couldn't have because cert was granted prior to her seating (& RBG couldn't have granted cert here either, since she passed away prior to cert being granted), but other than them, I could see all of the remaining 6 having voted to do so.

[Geoffrey Howe]

I don’t like Roberts’s logic. Litigation always takes a long time, and if the fact that it’s been a long time since the event happened is an acceptable excuse, then there will be many cases where relief will not be granted when it should be. Also if institutions can simply rescind policies and have the case dismissed then it becomes very hard to set court precedent against such policies.

But is there already precedent?  I haven't looked into the specifics of this case, but I'd doubt if there weren't. On its face, this case seems like a waste of court time. I have to wonder which justices (other than Thomas) thought this case was worth granting cert to.

Well, it was Thomas writing for an 8-1 majority (with only Kavanaugh going so far as to author a concurrence), so I have to imagine a good chunk of said majority did so as well. Roberts obviously didn't & mayyybe Kavanaugh didn't + Barrett couldn't have because cert was granted prior to her seating (& RBG couldn't have granted cert here either, since she passed away prior to cert being granted), but other than them, I could see all of the remaining 6 having voted to do so.

Perhaps others wanted to grant cert to address the broader question of jurisdiction - mootness/redress of $1. I may be wrong.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I've looked into the case now, and it's clear the court took the case to resolve a circuit split over the issue of mootness when there are only nominal damages involved.  The fascinating thing is the court had earlier denied cert on a prior Eleventh Circuit case Flanigan's Enters., Inc. v. City of Sandy Springs that had initially created the split. Moreover, the Eleventh had cited its prior ruling in Flanigan's when deciding Uzuegbunam.

<sarcasm> I wonder why the court refused cert on the mootness split when the plaintiff was a seller of sex toys, but issued cert on the exact same issue when the plaintiff was a religious proselytizer. </sarcasm>

Anyways, from a philosophical POV, I agree with Roberts here. Such suits once the transgressor has reversed itself and accepted that it can't do what it had done aren't what we want our overworked courts dealing with once all that remains in controversy are nominal damages and not the underlying conduct. That said, what constitutes nominal damages is an issue best left to the legislative branch, not the judicial branch.

Absent a lack of precedent on the underlying issue, there was little to be gained by allowing this case (or similar cases) to clog the courts.

[Donerail]

That said, what constitutes nominal damages is an issue best left to the legislative branch, not the judicial branch.

What? Why on earth would Congress play a role in defining the term "nominal damages"? Is the restatement or the dictionary insufficient?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

That said, what constitutes nominal damages is an issue best left to the legislative branch, not the judicial branch.

What? Why on earth would Congress play a role in defining the term "nominal damages"? Is the restatement of the dictionary insufficient?

While I think we can generally agree one dollar today is nominal, What about two dollars? Five dollars? Ten dollars? Twenty dollars? Fifty dollars? ...

While the concept of nominal damages needs no definition, where the boundary between nominal and non-nominal does, as does when nominal damages are worth pursuing in Federal court.

[Donerail]

That said, what constitutes nominal damages is an issue best left to the legislative branch, not the judicial branch.

What? Why on earth would Congress play a role in defining the term "nominal damages"? Is the restatement of the dictionary insufficient?

While I think we can generally agree one dollar today is nominal, What about two dollars? Five dollars? Ten dollars? Twenty dollars? Fifty dollars? ...

While the concept of nominal damages needs no definition, where the boundary between nominal and non-nominal does, as does when nominal damages are worth pursuing in Federal court.

But that's not how nominal damages usually work — if you bring (for some reason) a legitimate federal claim that you suffered $20 worth of injury, and win, those are compensatory. If you fail to prove the injury, you might still get $1 (or $20, if the court is feeling generous). The actual dollar amount is not really what matters.