Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-968_8nj9.pdf
Page Number: 8.0

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

5 

Opinion of the Court 

supra, at 636. 

The  parties  disagree,  however,  about  whether  nominal 
damages alone could provide retrospective relief.  Stressing
the  declaratory  function,  respondents  argue  that  nominal
damages  by  themselves  redressed  only  continuing  or 
threatened injury, not past injury.

But cases at common law paint a different picture.  Early
courts required the plaintiff to prove actual monetary dam-
ages in every case: “[I]njuria & damnum [injury and dam-
age] are the two grounds for the having [of] all actions, and 
without  these,  no  action  lieth.”    Cable  v.  Rogers,  3  Bulst. 
311, 312, 81 Eng. Rep. 259 (K. B. 1625).  Later courts, how-
ever,  reasoned  that  every  legal  injury  necessarily  causes 
damage,  so  they  awarded  nominal  damages  absent  evi-
dence of other damages (such as compensatory, statutory,
or punitive damages), and they did so where there was no
apparent continuing or threatened injury for nominal dam-
ages to redress.  See, e.g., Barker v. Green, 2 Bing. 317, 130
Eng. Rep. 327 (C. P. 1824) (nominal damages awarded for 
1-day delay in arrest because “if there was a breach of duty 
the law would presume some damage”); Hatch v. Lewis, 2 
F. & F. 467, 479, 485–486, 175 Eng. Rep. 1145, 1150, 1153 
(N. P. 1861) (ineffective assistance by criminal defense at-
torney that does not prejudice the client); Dods v. Evans, 15 
C. B. N. S. 621, 624, 627, 143 Eng. Rep. 929, 930–931 (C. P. 
1864) (breach of contract); Marzetti v. Williams, 1 B. & Ad. 
415,  417–418,  423–428,  109  Eng.  Rep.  842,  843,  845–847
(K. B. 1830) (bank’s 1-day delay in paying on a check); id., 
at  424,  109  Eng.  Rep.,  at  845  (recognizing  that  breach  of 
contract could create a continuing injury but determining
that the fact of breach of contract by itself justified nominal 
damages).

The  latter  approach  was  followed  both  before  and  after 
ratification of the Constitution.  An early case about voting
rights effectively illustrates this common-law understand-
ing.  Faced with a suit pleading denial of the right to vote,