Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-968_8nj9.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2020 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

UZUEGBUNAM ET AL. v. PRECZEWSKI ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT 

No. 19–968.  Argued January 12, 2021—Decided March 8, 2021 

Petitioners are former students of Georgia Gwinnett College who wished 
to  exercise  their  religion  by  sharing  their  faith  on  campus  while  en-
rolled there.  In 2016, Chike Uzuegbunam talked with interested stu-
dents and handed out religious literature on campus grounds.  Uzueg-
bunam stopped after a campus police officer informed him that campus
policy prohibited distributing written religious materials outside areas
designated for that purpose.  A college official later explained to Uzueg-
bunam that he could speak about his religion or distribute materials 
only  in  two  designated  speech  areas  on  campus,  and  even  then  only 
after securing a permit.  But when Uzuegbunam obtained the required
permit and tried to speak in a free speech zone, a campus police officer
again asked him to stop, this time saying that people had complained 
about his speech.  Campus policy at that time prohibited using the free 
speech zone to say anything that “disturbs the peace and/or comfort of
person(s).”  The officer told Uzuegbunam that his speech violated cam-
pus policy because it had led to complaints, and the officer 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 Uzuegbunam and Brad-
ford sued certain college officials charged with enforcement of the col-
lege’s  speech  policies,  arguing  that  these  policies  violated  the  First 
Amendment.  As relevant here, the students sought injunctive relief 
and nominal damages.  The college officials ultimately chose to discon-
tinue  the  challenged  policies  rather  than  to  defend  them,  and  they
sought dismissal on the ground that the policy change left the students 
without  standing  to  sue.  The  parties  agreed  that  the  policy  change
rendered the students’ request for injunctive relief moot, but disputed