Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-968_8nj9.pdf
Page Number: 25

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

9 

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting 

defendant  towards  the  plaintiff ”  by  requiring  “money
changing  hands.”    Ante,  at  10  (internal  quotation  marks 
omitted).  If  this  were  the  standard,  then  the  prospect  of
attorney’s fees and costs would confer standing at the be-
ginning of a lawsuit and prevent mootness throughout—a
proposition we have squarely rejected.  See Lewis v. Conti-
nental  Bank  Corp.,  494  U. S.  472,  480  (1990).    The  Court 
posits  that  “nominal  damages  are  redress,”  whereas  fees
and costs “are merely a byproduct of a suit that already suc-
ceeded.”  Ante,  at  11  (internal  quotation  marks  omitted).
This classification just begs the question of what qualifies
as redress.  To satisfy Article III, redress must alleviate the
plaintiff ’s alleged injury in some way, either by compensat-
ing the plaintiff for a past loss or by preventing an ongoing 
or future harm.  Nominal damages do not serve these ends 
where  a  plaintiff  alleges  only  a  completed  violation  of  his 
rights.  They are not intended to approximate the value of 
tangible  or  intangible  harms,  or  the  deterrent  effect  re-
quired to prevent future misconduct.  And they are not cal-
culated with reference to either of these purposes.  Because 
such an award performs no remedial function—and because 
“[r]elief  that  does  not  remedy  the  injury  suffered  cannot 
bootstrap a plaintiff into federal court,” Steel Co., 523 U. S., 
at  107—nominal  damages  cannot  preserve  a  live  contro-
versy where a case is otherwise moot. 

III 
Today’s  decision  risks  a  major  expansion  of the  judicial
role.  Until now, we have said that federal courts can review 
the legality of policies and actions only as a necessary inci-
dent to resolving real disputes.  Going forward, the Judici-
ary  will  be  required  to  perform  this  function  whenever  a 
plaintiff asks for a dollar.  For those who want to know if 
their rights have been violated, the least dangerous branch 
will become the least expensive source of legal advice.

In  an  effort  to  downplay  these  consequences,  the  Court