UZUEGBUNAM ET AL. v. PRECZEWSKI ET AL. (2021): Along with having two unprounounceable names as the two parties, this case involves several different issues.
1. May a public college limit the distribution of literature on campus except in two tiny free speech zones, so that those afraid of having their ideas challenged do not need to be exposed to contrary points of view? (Notb that this could happen in most college classrooms.)
2. Campus security told this group of students that they needed a permit to expose students to new ideas, and even then, only in the tiny free speech zones.
3. They got a permit, went to the free speech zone, and were then told that what they were saying offended some students, so they had to stop.
4. The students sued the college, which suddenly realized that all of America is, for the time being, a free speech zone, and being offended is not a valid basis to suppress free speech. The college repealed their orders.
5. The students pursued what the Court called "nominal damages." The college said the case was moot because the rules prohibiting free speech had been repealed.
6. The Court by an 8-1 majority ruled that because the injury was real, even though the college had ceased its repressive ways, the suit could continue. Doing wrong and promising that you will behave in the future is not enough.
I wonder if the NY city gun control case had nominal damages? The one that about not being able to take a fire arm outside of the city. NY city repealed the law and the case got tossed for being moot.
ReplyDeleteI get the moot part as the offending law no longer exists BUT it seems unfair that governments that abuse rights can get a pass on it. At some point it would have been nice to see the USSC to say, "No, you can't do this," as a message to everyone else. The flip side of that is the court only has so much time to consider these things.