Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-280_ba7d.pdf
Page Number: 19

16 

NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSN., INC. v. 
CITY OF NEW YORK 
ALITO, J., dissenting 

refused to award relief outside the pleadings only when that 
would somehow prejudice the defendant, such as when the 
defendant did not have an opportunity to contest the basis 
for that relief.  See Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U. S. 
405,  424  (1975);  United  States  v.  Marin,  651  F. 2d  24,  30 
(CA1 1981); 10 Wright & Miller §2664.  Otherwise, “a party
should  experience  little  difficulty  in  securing  a  remedy
other than that demanded in the pleadings as long as the 
party  shows  a  right  to  it.”    Id.,  §2662,  p. 168.    Here,  that 
could include damages. 

1 
At a minimum, if petitioners succeeded on their challenge
to the travel restrictions, they would be eligible for nominal 
damages.  When  a  plaintiff ’s  constitutional  rights  have 
been violated, nominal damages may be awarded without 
proof  of  any  additional  injury.    See  Carey  v.  Piphus,  435 
U. S. 247 (1978); Memphis Community School Dist. v. Sta-
chura, 477 U. S. 299 (1986).  Nominal damages are “the ap-
propriate  means  of  vindicating  rights  whose  deprivation
has not caused actual, provable injury.”  Id., at 308, n. 11 
(internal  quotation  marks  omitted);  see  also  Carey,  435 
U. S., at 266.  And they are particularly important in vindi-
cating constitutional interests.  See Riverside v. Rivera, 477 
U. S.  561,  574  (1986)  (plurality  opinion).    Consequently,
courts routinely award nominal damages for constitutional 
violations.  See, e.g., Stoedter v. Gates, 704 Fed. Appx. 748,
762  (CA10  2017)  (Fourth  Amendment);  Klein  v.  Laguna 
Beach, 810 F. 3d 693, 697 (CA9 2016) (free speech); Project 
Vote/Voting for America, Inc. v. Dickerson, 444 Fed. Appx. 
660,  661  (CA4  2011)  (per curiam)  (free  speech);  Price  v. 
Charlotte,  93  F. 3d  1241,  1257  (CA4  1996)  (equal  protec-
tion).  And it is widely recognized that a claim for nominal 

—————— 
F. 2d  172,  176,  n. 3  (CA5  1975)  (allowing  claim  for  damages  raised  for 
first time on appeal in light of Rule 54(c) and the catchall prayer for relief 
in plaintiff ’s complaint); accord, 10 Wright & Miller §2664.