The Supreme Court recently held, 8-1, that a claim for nominal damages can save a §1983 federal court case from dismissal for mootness, Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, 141S. Ct. 792 (2021 (U. v. P.). The court found that a nominal damage claim creates the necessary Article III case or controversy for standing and mootness purposes. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the opinion for the court. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a brief concurrence. Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. was the sole dissenter.

Nominal damages play important roles in §1983 constitutional litigation. Consider the following:

(1) Under Supreme Court decisional law, nominal damages in some cases may be the only available monetary remedy for a violation of the plaintiff’s constitutional rights;

(2) Some cases are brought to establish or vindicate a constitutional right rather than to recover monetary damages;

(3) Nominal damages may support an award of statutory attorney’s fees to the prevailing plaintiff under 42 U.S.C §1988(b); and

(4) Under U. v. P., a claim for nominal damages supports Article III standing and precludes dismissal for mootness.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]