这美国最高法院周一，他站在一名前佐治亚大学学生一边，该学生起诉了他的学校，因为学校禁止他在校园言论自由区表达宗教观点。
8-1决定由克拉伦斯·托马斯大法官撰写的文章说，奇科·乌祖格邦姆——他甚至在获得改变宗教信仰和分发宗教文献的许可后仍被佐治亚州格温内特学院的官员压制——可以寻求名义上的损害赔偿，尽管学校最终改变了课程，乌祖格邦姆后来毕业了。
在一次非常罕见的投票中，首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨是本案中唯一的反对法官。
捍卫自由联盟
前佐治亚州格温内特学院学生奇科·乌祖格邦姆于1999年在美国最高法院外
托马斯法官写道:“无可争议的是，当被告对他实施言论政策时，Uzuegbunam的宪法权利遭到了完全的侵犯。”“因为‘每一次侵犯(权利)都会带来损害’，所以名义上的损害可以弥补Uzuegbunam的损害，即使他不能或选择不从经济角度量化这种损害。”
如果一个人受到非法行为的伤害，但没有遭受重大的经济损失，就可以获得名义上的损害赔偿，例如，甚至只有1美元。第一修正案的支持者称这一决定是言论自由和宗教表达的胜利。
“当公职人员侵犯宪法权利时，会对受害者造成严重伤害，”在此案中代表Uzuegbunam的捍卫自由联盟律师克里斯汀·瓦格纳说。“当此类官员行为不端但未面临任何后果时，受害者将无法求助，破坏了国家保护宪法权利的承诺，并鼓励政府在未来从事侵权行为。我们很高兴最高法院为这些受害者伸张了正义。”
艾尔·德拉戈/盖蒂影像公司
雕塑家詹姆斯·厄尔·弗雷泽创作的《法律的守护者》坐落在
尼尔·戈鲁奇法官、塞缪尔·阿利托法官、布雷特·卡瓦诺艾米·科尼·巴雷特、斯蒂芬·布雷尔、埃琳娜·卡根和索尼娅·索托马约尔都加入了托马斯的意见，这推翻了下级法院的两项裁决，这两项裁决一致认为该案没有实际意义。
“我同意法院的观点，根据历史和先例，原告的名义损害赔偿请求可以满足第三条的可补救性要求，并可以使一个否则没有意义的案件继续存在，”卡瓦诺法官在一份同意意见中写道。
捍卫自由联盟
奇科·乌祖格邦姆因违反
罗伯茨辩称，法院无权介入这场纠纷，因为它不再是一个问题。
罗伯茨写道，乌祖格邦姆和一名福音派基督教学生起诉了这所学校，“他们不再是学院的学生了。受到质疑的限制不再存在。请愿者没有声称实际损失。因此，该案没有实际意义，因为联邦法院不能给予乌祖格邦姆和布拉德福德任何有效的救济。"
Supreme Court sides with Christian students silenced on Georgia campus
TheU.S. Supreme Courton Monday sided with a former Georgia college student who sued his school after it prevented him from expressing religious views in a free-speech zone on campus.
The 8-1decision, authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, said that Chike Uzuegbunam -- who was silenced by Georgia Gwinnett College officials even after he had obtained a permit to proselytize and handout religious literature -- can seek nominal damages despite the fact that the school ultimately changed course and Uzuegbunam subsequently graduated.
In a very rare alignment of votes,Chief Justice John Robertswas the lone dissenting justice in the case.
"It is undisputed that Uzuegbunam experienced a completed violation of his constitutional rights when respondents enforced their speech policies against him," wrote Justice Thomas. "Because 'every violation [of a right] imports damage,' nominal damages can redress Uzuegbunam’s injury even if he cannot or chooses not to quantify that harm in economic terms."
Nominal damages -- even as little as $1, for example -- are awarded in cases where a person has been harmed by illegal conduct but not suffered significant financial loss. First Amendment advocates called the decision a win for free speech and religious expression.
“When public officials violate constitutional rights, it causes serious harm to the victims," said Kristen Waggoner, an attorney for Alliance Defending Freedom, which represented Uzuegbunam in the case. "When such officials engage in misconduct but face no consequences, it leaves victims without recourse, undermines the nation’s commitment to protecting constitutional rights, and emboldens the government to engage in future violations. We are pleased that the Supreme Court weighed in on the side of justice for those victims.”
Justices Neil Gorsuch, Samuel Alito,Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor all joined Thomas in the opinion, which reversed two lower court rulings that agreed with the school in calling the case moot.
"I agree with the Court that, as a matter of history and precedent, a plaintiff’s request for nominal damages can satisfy the redressability requirement for Article III standing and can keep an otherwise moot case alive," Justice Kavanaugh wrote in a concurring opinion.
Roberts argued that the courts had no place getting involved in the dispute because it was no longer an issue.
Uzuegbunam and a fellow evangelical Christian student suing the school, Roberts wrote, "are no longer students 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 whatever.'"
