Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-280_ba7d.pdf
Page Number: 22

Cite as:  590 U. S. ____ (2020) 

19 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

307; Carey, 435 U. S., at 260–264; Dobbs, Law of Remedies 
§7.4(1), at 660, §8.1(4), at 676; cf. 4 F. Harper, F. James, & 
O. Gray, Torts §25.10A (3d ed. 2007) (surveying loss of en-
joyment awards).  Among other things, depriving a licensee
of the opportunity to obtain the benefits of competing and 
perhaps obtaining recognition at a well-known competition 
may cause a real loss.  Lower courts have affirmed awards 
of  compensatory  damages  for  similar  kinds  of  injuries  re-
sulting  from  constitutional  violations.   See Dobbs,  Law  of 
Remedies, at 660.8  Petitioners could introduce evidence on 
remand to show such loss. 

For  purposes  of  determining  whether  this  case  is  moot, 
the question is not whether petitioners would actually suc-
ceed in obtaining such damages or whether their loss was 
substantial.  If there is a possibility of obtaining damages 
in any amount, the case is not moot. 

—————— 

8 For example, in Brooks v. Andolina, 826 F. 2d 1266 (1987), the Third 
Circuit held that a prisoner could seek damages for various deprivations 
suffered during punitive segregation imposed in retaliation for the exer-
cise of his free speech rights.  Id., at 1270.  These injuries included loss
of visiting and phone privileges, recreation rights, and access to the law 
library. 

In Young v. Little Rock,  249  F. 3d  730  (2001),  the  Eighth  Circuit  af-
firmed  a  jury  award  of  compensatory  damages  for  wrongful  detention
that caused psychological harm.  Id., at 736. 

In Drake v. Lawrence, 524 N. E. 2d 337 (1988), the Indiana Court of
Appeals  affirmed  a  compensatory  damages  award  for,  among  other 
things, the embarrassment of a false arrest in front of an employee and 
customer and the anxiety associated with pending charges.  Id., at 342.
  In  Watseka  v.  Illinois  Public  Action  Council,  796  F. 2d  1547  (1986), 
aff ’d, 479 U. S. 1048 (1987), the Seventh Circuit affirmed an award of 
damages for “specific compensable, non-abstract harm” resulting from an 
unconstitutional  ordinance  restricting  door-to-door  solicitation.  That 
harm included the organization’s inability to recruit new members, dis-
seminate its views, and encourage others to support its positions.  796 
F. 2d, at 1558–1559; see also, e.g., King v. Zamiara, 788 F. 3d 207, 213– 
214  (CA6  2015)  (affirming  compensatory  damages  award  for  injury
caused by transfer of inmate in retaliation for filing lawsuit, when trans-
fer impeded his ability to participate in litigation).