Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-280_ba7d.pdf
Page Number: 20.0

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

17 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

damages precludes mootness.  See 13C C. Wright, A. Miller,
& E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure §3533.3, n. 47 
(3d ed. Supp. 2019) (collecting cases); see also, e.g., Central 
Radio Co. v.  Norfolk, 811 F. 3d 625, 631–632 (CA4 2016); 
Morgan v. Plano Independent School Dist., 589 F. 3d 740, 
748, n. 32 (CA5 2009); Bernhardt v. County of Los Angeles, 
279 F. 3d 862, 872 (CA9 2002); Amato v. Saratoga Springs, 
170  F. 3d  311,  317  (CA2  1999)  (Sand,  J.,  joined  by  So-
tomayor, J.); Committee for First Amendment v. Campbell, 
962 F. 2d 1517, 1526–1527 (CA10 1992); Henson v. Honor 
Committee of U. Va., 719 F. 2d 69, 72, n. 5 (CA4 1983).6 

2 
It is even possible that one or more of the petitioners may 
be eligible for compensatory damages.  To get such relief,
they would of course be required to show that they suffered
an “actual injury.”  See Carey, 435 U. S., at 266; D. Dobbs 
& C. Roberts, Law of Remedies §7.4(1), p. 660 (3d ed. 2018). 
But petitioners may be able to make such a  showing.  As 
discussed  above,  the  failure  to  include  in  their  complaint
specific factual allegations of actual injury would not pre-
clude such recovery.7  See Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 54(c).  Nor 
were petitioners obligated to provide information support-
ing actual injury in opposing the City’s motion for summary
judgment.

If  we  were  to  reverse  the  judgment  below  and  hold  the 
City’s old rule unconstitutional, it would be appropriate to 

—————— 

6 A single Circuit has held that a claim for nominal damages alone does 
not  maintain  a  live  dispute.   See  Flanigan’s  Enterprises,  Inc.  of  Ga. v. 
Sandy Springs, 868 F. 3d 1248 (CA11 2017).  But that holding is difficult 
to reconcile with Carey and Stachura’s endorsement of nominal damages 
as an appropriate constitutional remedy. 

7 Even if specific allegations in the complaint were necessary, the Dis-
trict Court could allow amendment.  See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine 
Research, Inc., 401 U. S. 321, 331 (1971); 6 Wright & Miller §1474 (3d ed. 
2010).