Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski (19-968)

argument 19-968

Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 32m 8 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 6 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the central issue the petitioners raise about nominal damages in this case?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We will hear argument this morning in case nineteen nine sixty eight Uzabionum versus Prochewski. Ms. Wagoner?

Kristen Waggoner 0:08

Thank you, Mr Chief Justice. May it please the court. When Georgia Gwinnette officials stopped Chi K Uzabunam and Joseph Bradford from sharing their faith, the officials caused concrete injuries. Chike and Joseph lost forever the chance to get those days back and speak their message to their peers. No policy change can ever restore that lost opportunity. And as this court said in Kerry, Satura and Ferrar, the appropriate remedy to redress those past harms is nominal damages. Nominal damages awards satisfy Article three. Ferrar explains that nominal damages provide relief on the merits, vindicate the plaintiff through an enforceable judgment, and modify the defendant's behavior for the plaintiff's benefit by forcing the defendant to pay the plaintiff money.

Kristen Waggoner 0:56

The classic Article III remedy for past injury. A one, ten or one hundred dollar award satisfies Article three because it puts money in a plaintiff's pocket, no matter how it is labeled, compensatory, statutory, liquidated, or nominal. The Eleventh Circuit's outlier rule is a radical departure. For centuries, English and American courts have awarded nominal damages when no future threat exists. Even after a plane if waves compensatory damages. Every circuit to address the issue does the same, even the eleventh until its recent decision. This court should retain the longstanding rule. It has not resulted in a glut of cases, and the alternative makes a mess of this court's clear Article three jurisprudence.

Kristen Waggoner 1:44

Nominal damages provide a remedy in many contexts, redressing injuries that transcend price tags, from unconstitutional searches and seizures to free exercise and due process violations to censorship and compulsion of speech. These constitutional rights are invaluable even when they don't result in quantifiable harm, yet the officials urge you to treat them as worthless. This court should decline that invitation and reverse. I look forward to your questions.

John G. Roberts 2:14

Uh uh Counsel, I want to understand the scope of your argument uh first. Uh say you go into court and say your rights have been violated. The judge asks, have you been damaged by that? Does you have any compensable injury? You say no. Uh and he asks, Is there any is that violation going to have any effect on you in the future? And you say no. It's not going to be repeated. And he says, Well then you don't have standing, uh I've got to throw the case out. And you say, Oh well throw me throw in a buck uh and then the judge is supposed to say, Yeah, well everything's fine now? Doesn't that doesn't that make a mockery of our Article three requirements?

Kristen Waggoner 2:52

No, your Article three requirements require redress and this court has defined that as a personal tangible benefit. The amount or the label is not necessarily significant. What is significant is that the past injury is afforded some sort of redress, whether that's a good idea Well but the

John G. Roberts 3:08

only redress the only redress you're asking for is uh a declaration that you're right. Uh you want the court to say, you know, you're right and the dollar uh simply is a symbol to represent that determination.

Kristen Waggoner 3:23

There is a declaration that every judgment award would provide, regardless of whether it's compensatory or statutory or liquidated. But in addition to the declaration, there it does need to be redressed for the past injury. Decl declaratory judgments do nothing for past injuries. They only redressed. Well, but I I d but I

John G. Roberts 3:43

Page eighteen and nineteen of the respondents brief, they go through all the authorities that say that it's not that that dollar is a small amount of compensatory damages, it is in name only. It is not damages at all.

Kristen Waggoner 3:58

That's not what this course cases have said or the common law and that the significance of redressing the right, the fact that a past injury has occurred, money changes hands. As this court said in Ferrar, it modifies the defendant's behavior in a way that benefits the plaintiff, and providing money damages of any amount is significant and that it provides redress for the parties and an enforceable judgment on