Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-968_8nj9.pdf
Page Number: 6.0

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

3 

Opinion of the Court 

that Uzuegbunam’s discussion of his religion “arguably rose 
to the level of ‘fighting words.’ ”  Id., at 155(a).  But the col-
lege officials quickly abandoned that strategy and instead 
decided  to  get  rid  of  the  challenged  policies.   They  then
moved to dismiss, arguing that the suit was moot, because 
of the policy change.  The students agreed that injunctive 
relief was no longer available, but they disagreed that the 
case was moot.  They contended that their case was still live
because they had also sought nominal damages.  The Dis-
trict  Court  dismissed  the  case,  holding  that  the  students’ 
claim for nominal damages was insufficient by itself to es-
tablish standing.

The  Eleventh  Circuit  affirmed.    781  Fed.  Appx.  824 
(2019).  It stated that a request for nominal damages can 
save a case from mootness in certain circumstances, such 
as  where  a  person  pleads  but  fails  to  prove  an  amount  of
compensatory damages.  But, because the students did not 
request  compensatory  damages,  their  plea  for  nominal 
damages could not by itself establish standing.

We granted certiorari to consider whether a plaintiff who
sues over a completed injury and establishes the first two
elements of standing (injury and traceability) can establish
the third by requesting only nominal damages.  591 U. S. 
___ (2020).  We now reverse. 

II 
To  satisfy  the  “ ‘irreducible  constitutional  minimum’ ”  of
Article  III  standing,  a  plaintiff  must  not  only  establish 
(1) an injury in fact (2) that is fairly traceable to the chal-
lenged conduct, but he must also seek (3) a remedy that is
likely  to  redress  that  injury.  Spokeo,  Inc.  v.  Robins,  578 
U. S.  330,  338  (2016);  see  also  Gill  v.  Whitford,  585  U. S. 
___, ___–___ (2018) (slip op., at 13–14).  There is no dispute
that  Uzuegbunam  has  established  the  first  two  elements.
The only question is whether the remedy he sought—nom-
inal damages—can redress the constitutional violation that