Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski
The Court held that in a case about nominal damages for suppressed free speech rights later mooted by intervening circumstances, nominal damages for a past rights violation satisfy Article III's redressability requirement.· AI-written
141 S. Ct. 792 · No. 19-968 · 2020 term · Roberts Court
Decided Mar 8, 2021 · argued Jan 12, 2021
Judicial power · Standing to sue: live dispute
Majority opinion: Clarence Thomas
The voteMajorityDissent
8–18 in the majority, 1 in dissent
1 dissent (8–1)
Reversed and remanded. Uzuegbunam won.
What this ruling means
Reversed and remanded: the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit and sent the case back to that court for further proceedings that follow the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Uzuegbunam was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, 592 U.S. 279 (2021), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, dealing with nominal damages to be awarded to individuals whose right to freedom of speech has been suppressed by an entity but subsequently rendered moot due to intervening circumstances. In an 8–1 decision, the Court held that such nominal damages satisfy the Article Three requirement of redressability, when awarded for a past violation of a legal rights.
Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority that Uzuegbunam's inability to quantify his damages in economic terms did not bar him from demanding nominal damages. Chief Justice John Roberts, dissenting alone for the only time so far in his tenure on the Court, argued that the majority had opened up the federal courts to litigation by anyone willing to claim so much as one dollar in nominal damages.
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 2020 term. Filled: the 8 in the majority. Hollow: the 1 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(8)
Clarence ThomasWrote the majority opinion
Brett KavanaughWrote a concurrence
Sonia SotomayorJoined the majority
Stephen BreyerJoined the majority
Elena KaganJoined the majority
Amy BarrettJoined the majority
Neil GorsuchJoined the majority
Samuel AlitoJoined the majority
Dissent(1)
John RobertsWrote a dissent
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- UzuegbunamStudent, or applicant for admission to an educational institution
- Respondent
- PreczewskiState college or university (Georgia)
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- Article III, Section 2, Paragraph 1 (case or controversy requirement)
- Kind of law
- Constitution
- Decided by
- Judicial review (national level)
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Mar 8, 2021DecidedDecided · Decided 8–1: reversed and remanded. Uzuegbunam won.
- Jan 12, 2021ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit: affirmed.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the Georgia Northern U.S. District Court.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
8 other argued cases since 1946 on standing to sue: live dispute, newest first.
- Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc.,572 U.S. 118Mar 25, 2014 · 572 U.S. 118Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- Priscilla Summers et al. v. Earth Island Institute et al.555 U.S. 488Mar 3, 2009 · 555 U.S. 488Judicial power5–45–4 band
- Texas v. United States et al.523 U.S. 296Mar 31, 1998 · 523 U.S. 296Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- Louise Renne, San Francisco City Attorney, et al. v. Bob Geary, et al.501 U.S. 312Jun 17, 1991 · 501 U.S. 312Judicial power6–36–3 band
- ASARCO Inc. et al. v. Kadish et al.490 U.S. 605May 30, 1989 · 490 U.S. 605Judicial power6–27–2 band
- United States Parole Commission et al. v. Geraghty445 U.S. 388Mar 19, 1980 · 445 U.S. 388Judicial power5–45–4 band
- Deposit Guaranty National Bank of Jackson, Mississippi v. Roper et al.445 U.S. 326Mar 19, 1980 · 445 U.S. 326Judicial power7–27–2 band
- Golden, Acting District Attorney of Kings County v. Zwickler394 U.S. 103Mar 3, 1969 · 394 U.S. 103Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.