U.S. Supreme Court,
Constitutional Law
Mar. 17, 2021
Nominal damages sufficient for Article III standing; dissent warns of ‘major expansion’ of courts’ role
The U.S. Supreme Court addressed the question whether nominal damages for a past violation of legal rights satisfies the redressability requirement for standing under the U.S. Constitution’s Article III, drawing a lone dissent from Justice Roberts — his first lone dissent during his tenure on the bench.
Anna McLean
Partner
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
Anna is a partner in the firm's Business Trial Practice Group and is based in its San Francisco office. She is also a leader of the firm's Class Action Defense Team.
Michael A. Lundholm
Associate
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP
Phone: 415-774-2995
Email: mlundholm@sheppardmullin.com
Michael is an associate in the firm's Business Trial Practice Group and is based in its San Francisco office.
In Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, 2021 DJDAR 2126, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the question whether nominal damages for a past violation of legal rights satisfies the redressability requirement for standing under the U.S. Constitution's Article III. In an 8-1 decision published March 8, the Supreme Court answered that question in the affirmative. Just as notewort...
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In