Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-968_8nj9.pdf
Page Number: 17

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

1 

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 19–968 
_________________ 

CHIKE UZUEGBUNAM, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. 
STANLEY C. PRECZEWSKI, ET AL. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT 

[March 8, 2021] 

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, dissenting. 
Petitioners  Chike  Uzuegbunam  and  Joseph  Bradford
want  to  challenge  the  constitutionality  of  speech  re-
strictions at Georgia Gwinnett College.  There are just a few
problems:  Uzuegbunam  and  Bradford  are  no  longer  stu-
dents at the college.  The challenged restrictions no longer 
exist.  And the petitioners have not alleged actual damages.
The case is therefore moot because a federal court cannot 
grant Uzuegbunam and Bradford “any effectual relief what-
ever.”  Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U. S. 165, 172 (2013) (internal 
quotation marks omitted). 

The Court resists this conclusion, holding that the peti-
tioners  can  keep  pressing  their  claims  because  they  have
asked for “nominal damages.”  In the Court’s view, nominal 
damages  can  save  a  case  from  mootness  because  any 
amount  of  money—no  matter  how  trivial—“can  redress  a 
past injury.”  Ante, at 1.  But an award of nominal damages
does not alleviate the harms suffered by a plaintiff, and is
not  intended  to.  If  nominal  damages  can  preserve  a  live
controversy, then federal courts will be required to give ad-
visory opinions whenever a plaintiff tacks on a request for
a dollar.  Because I would place a higher value on Article
III, I respectfully dissent.