Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-968_8nj9.pdf
Page Number: 5

2 

UZUEGBUNAM v. PRECZEWSKI 

Opinion of the Court 

where students often gather, Uzuegbunam engaged in con-
versations  with  interested  students  and  handed  out  reli-
gious literature. 

A campus police officer soon informed Uzuegbunam that 
campus policy prohibited distributing written religious ma-
terials in that area and told him to stop.  Uzuegbunam com-
plied with the officer’s order.  To learn more about this pol-
icy,  he  then  visited  the  college’s  Director  of  the  Office  of
Student Integrity, who was directly responsible for promul-
gating  and  enforcing  the  policy.  When  asked  if  Uzueg-
bunam  could  continue  speaking  about  his  religion  if  he 
stopped distributing materials, the official said no.  The of-
ficial explained that Uzuegbunam could speak about his re-
ligion or distribute materials only in two designated “free
speech  expression  areas,”  which  together  make  up  just
0.0015  percent  of  campus.  And  he  could  do  so  only  after 
securing the necessary permit.  Uzuegbunam then applied
for and received a permit to use the free speech zone.

Twenty  minutes  after  Uzuegbunam  began  speaking  on
the day allowed by his permit, another campus police officer 
again  told  him  to  stop,  this  time  saying  that  people  had
complained about his speech.  Campus policy prohibited us-
ing the free speech zone to say anything that “disturbs the
peace  and/or  comfort  of  person(s).”    App.  to  Pet.  for  Cert. 
151(a).  The officer told Uzuegbunam that his speech vio-
lated this policy because it had led to complaints.  The of-
ficer threatened Uzuegbunam with disciplinary action if he
continued.  Uzuegbunam again complied with the order to 
stop speaking.  Another student who shares Uzuegbunam’s 
faith, Joseph Bradford, decided not to speak about religion
because of these events. 

Both students sued a number of college officials in charge
of enforcing the college’s speech policies, arguing that those 
policies violated the First Amendment.  As relevant here, 
they  sought  nominal  damages  and  injunctive  relief.  Re-
spondents initially attempted to defend the policy, stating