Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-968_8nj9.pdf
Page Number: 12.0

Cite as:  592 U. S. ____ (2021) 

9 

Opinion of the Court 

whether there has been the violation of a right.”  Webb, 29 
F. Cas., at 508.  When a right is violated, that violation “im-
ports damage in the nature of it” and “the party injured is 
entitled to a verdict for nominal damages.”  Id., at 508. 

Respondents and the dissent thus get the relationship be-
tween nominal damages and compensatory damages back-
wards.  Nominal damages are not a consolation prize for the
plaintiff who pleads, but fails to prove, compensatory dam-
ages.  They  are  instead  the  damages  awarded  by  default 
until  the  plaintiff  establishes  entitlement  to  some  other
form of damages, such as compensatory or statutory dam-
ages.  See,  e.g.,  Dods,  15  C. B.  N.  S.,  at  621,  627,  143 
Eng. Rep., at 929, 931 (prevailing plaintiff entitled to nom-
inal damages as a matter of law even where jury neglected
to find them); see also Stachura, 477 U. S., at 308 (rejecting 
the  argument  that  courts  could  presume,  without  proof, 
damages greater than nominal).

The argument that a claim for compensatory damages is 
a prerequisite for an award of nominal damages also rests 
on  the  flawed  premise  that  nominal  damages  are  purely
symbolic, a mere judicial token that provides no actual ben-
efit  to  the  plaintiff.    That  contention  is  not  without  some 
support.  See, e.g., Stanton v. New York & Eastern R. Co., 
59 Conn. 272, 282, 22 A. 300, 303 (1890) (“Nominal damages
mean no damages at all.  They exist only in name, and not 
in  amount”);  but  cf.  ibid.  (still  recognizing  that  nominal
damages are appropriate when a right is violated).  But this 
view is against the weight of the history discussed above,
and  we  have  already  expressly  rejected  it.  Despite  being 
small, nominal damages are certainly concrete.  The dissent 
says that “an award of nominal damages does not change [a
plaintiff’s]  status  or  condition  at  all.”    Post,  at  3.    But  we  
have  already  held  that  a  person  who  is  awarded  nominal
damages  receives  “relief  on  the  merits  of  his  claim”  and 
“may demand payment for nominal damages no less than