Posted on 03/12/2021 6:56:25 PM PST by marshmallow
Washington D.C., Mar 8, 2021 / 05:00 pm MT (CNA).- The Supreme Court on Monday allowed a former college student to pursue a remedy against school officials who restricted when and where he could evangelize on campus.
In Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, the court ruled 8-1 that Chike Uzuegbunam, who was restricted from evangelizing on a public college campus, could sue school officials for nominal damages due to an alleged violation of his free speech.
Justice Clarence Thomas authored the majority opinion, while Chief Justice John Roberts was the lone dissenter.
“To demonstrate standing, the plaintiff must not only establish an injury that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct but must also seek a remedy that redresses that injury,” Thomas wrote in the majority opinion.
“And if in the course of litigation a court finds that it can no longer provide a plaintiff with any effectual relief, the case generally is moot. This case asks whether an award of nominal damages by itself can redress a past injury. We hold that it can," Thomas wrote.
The group Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which litigates cases on behalf of religious freedom, applauded the court’s ruling.
“When government officials engage in misconduct without consequences, it leaves victims without recourse, undermines the nation’s commitment to protecting constitutional rights, and emboldens the government to engage in future violations,” said Kristen Waggoner, general counsel for ADF who argued the case before the Supreme Court.
“We are pleased that the Supreme Court weighed in on the side of justice for those victims,” Waggoner said.
The case involves Chike Uzuegbunam, an evangelical Christian who, while attending Georgia Gwinnett College in 2016, sought to evangelize fellow students. The school had a strict policy limiting where he could evangelize and at what time he could do so.
(Excerpt) Read more at catholicnewsagency.com ...
Not impressed. Not after what they did to Pres. Trump, the country, and 80-85 million voters regarding the blatantly stolen 2020 election.
Nothing they can do will make up for their utter betrayal of an entire nation.
Turning on Roberts is a start.
Bill Whittle, Scott Ott, and Stephen Green on Right Angle: Freedom of Speech and Religion Case Lives Thanks to Supreme Court $1 Decision
I agree it sucks where things are, that this is even an issue, but we need people like this young man who will fight back.
Justice Clarence Thomas; the REAL Chief Justice.
Which justice dissented?
“Which justice dissented?”
Third paragraph (just read it again). Answer: Our buddy, Roberts.
Weird decision, though - why would the Leftist judges come down on the side of freedom?
bookmark
Old school leftists valued the 1st amendment [even expanded freedom of speech to include non-vocal things like flag-burning] because they wanted to secure their own freedom of speech in cases, in part out of sincerity, in part because leftists were the minority and not in power.
“Conservative” Roberts? Like Schumer is a conservative.
In Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, the court ruled 8-1 that Chike Uzuegbunam, who was restricted from evangelizing on a public college campus, could sue school officials for nominal damages due to an alleged violation of his free speech.
Justice Clarence Thomas authored the majority opinion, while Chief Justice John Roberts was the lone dissenter.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.