Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-968_8nj9.pdf
Page Number: 2

2 

UZUEGBUNAM v. PRECZEWSKI 

Syllabus 

whether the students had standing to maintain the suit based on their 
remaining claim for nominal damages.  The Eleventh Circuit held that 
while a request for nominal damages can sometimes save a case from 
mootness, such as where a person pleads but fails to prove an amount 
of  compensatory  damages,  the  students’  plea  for  nominal  damages
alone could not by itself establish standing. 

Held: A request for nominal damages satisfies the redressability element
necessary for Article III standing where a plaintiff’s claim is based on
a completed violation of a legal right.  Pp. 3–12.

(a) To  establish  Article  III  standing,  the  Constitution  requires  a 
plaintiff to identify an injury in fact that is fairly traceable to the chal-
lenged  conduct  and  to  seek  a  remedy  likely  to  redress  that  injury. 
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U. S. 330, 338.  The dispute here concerns
whether the remedy Uzuegbunam sought—nominal damages—can re-
dress  the  completed  constitutional  violation  that  he  alleges  occurred
when campus officials enforced the speech policies against him.  The 
Court looks to the forms of relief awarded at common law to determine 
whether nominal damages can redress a past injury.  The prevailing
rule  at  common  law  was  that  a  party  whose  rights  are  invaded  can 
always recover nominal damages without furnishing evidence of actual
damage.  By permitting plaintiffs to pursue nominal damages when-
ever they suffered a personal legal injury, the common law avoided the
oddity of privileging small economic rights over important, but not eas-
ily quantifiable, nonpecuniary rights.  Pp. 3–8.

(b) The common law did not require a plea for compensatory dam-
ages as a prerequisite to an award of nominal damages.  Nominal dam-
ages are not purely symbolic.  They are instead the damages awarded
by  default  until  the  plaintiff  establishes  entitlement  to  some  other 
form  of  damages.  A  single dollar  often  will  not  provide  full  redress,
but  the  partial  remedy  satisfies  the  redressability  requirement. 
Church  of  Scientology  of  Cal.  v.  United  States,  506  U.  S.  9,  13.  Re-
spondents’ argument that a plea for compensatory damages is neces-
sary to confer jurisdiction also does not square with established prin-
ciples of standing.  And unlike an award of attorney’s fees and costs 
which may be the byproduct of a successful suit, an award of nominal 
damages constitutes relief on the merits.  Pp. 8–11.

(c) A request  for redress  in  the  form  of  nominal  damages  does  not 
guarantee  entry  to  court.    In  addition  to  redressability,  the  plaintiff
must establish the other elements of standing and satisfy all other rel-
evant  requirements,  such  as  pleading  a  cognizable  cause  of  action. 
Uzuegbunam  experienced  a  completed  violation  of  his  constitutional 
rights  when  respondents  enforced  their  speech  policies  against  him.
Nominal damages can redress Uzuegbunam’s injury even if he cannot 
or  chooses  not  to  quantify  that  harm  in  economic  terms.   The  Court