Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-280_ba7d.pdf
Page Number: 23

20 

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

3 
One final point about damages must be addressed.  We 
have  warned  in  dicta  that  a  claim  of  damages,  “asserted 
solely to avoid otherwise certain mootness, [bears] close in-
spection.”  Arizonans  for  Official  English  v.  Arizona,  520 
U. S. 43, 71 (1997).  But if, after close inspection, we con-
clude  that  the  stringent  test  for  mootness  is  not  met,  we
have no authority to dismiss on that ground.
  Nothing in Arizonans for Official English suggests other-
wise.  In  that  case,  the  plaintiff,  who  was  an employee of 
the State of Arizona when she filed her complaint, sued the 
State  under  §1983,  claiming  that  a  state  constitutional 
amendment  declaring  English  the  official  language  of  the
State unconstitutionally prevented her from using Spanish
to perform her job.  Her requests for declaratory and injunc-
tive relief became moot when she left state employment for
the private sector, and we held that her request for nominal 
damages from the State did not save her case from moot-
ness since a State may not be sued under §1983.  520 U. S., 
at 67–69, 71.  The situation here is different because noth-
ing blocks an award of nominal damages from a city.9 

C 

Relief would be particularly appropriate here because the 

—————— 

9 The per curiam refuses to decide whether petitioners have a live claim 
for damages, claiming that the lower courts should determine in the first
instance  whether  any  effort  to  recover  damages  has  come  “too  late.” 
Ante, at 2.  But as previously discussed, see supra, at 15–16, prejudice is 
the critical factor in determining whether to permit a late request for a 
form of relief not expressly demanded in a complaint, and the per curiam 
does not identify any reason why allowing petitioners’ request for dam-
ages at this juncture would prejudice the City.  Under the Court’s deci-
sion, allowing damages will not prolong this litigation, because the case 
is  being  remanded  anyway,  and  there  is  no  suggestion  that  the  City
would  have  litigated  the  case  any  differently  if  it  had  been  on  express 
notice  that  petitioners  were  seeking  the  sort  of  modest  damages  dis-
cussed in this opinion.