During Supreme Court oral arguments Tuesday in a dispute over campus speech rights, justices cited a 2017 jury verdict that awarded pop star Taylor Swift’s demand to be paid $1 by a man who was found liable for groping her.
The reference to Swift’s sexual assault case arose as the court wrestled with the legal significance of a college student’s request for a minuscule payout from his college for allegedly violating his First Amendment rights.
Both Swift and the college student, Chike Uzuegbunam, demanded only pittances from defendants in their disputes — a legal concept known as “nominal damages.” At issue in the student’s case is whether his lawsuit should survive in light of both his college having lifted its offending speech restrictions, and the small amount of money requested.
Addressing a lawyer for Georgia Gwinnett College, Justice Elena Kagan suggested the $1 that the pop singer demanded, while small in financial terms, carried potent symbolic value — and asked if the same principle applied in Uzuegbunam’s case.
Though Georgia’s Solicitor General Andrew Pinson, who argued the case for the state college, told the justices that the student’s nominal damages claim is not legally significant enough to keep the case alive after the school relaxed its speech policy. In effect, the school argued, Uzuegbunam no longer has the kind of injury that must be present for a court to step in.
The verdict says that the justice is not running after penalties or filling the damages. Rather than valuing the freedom considering the specific case. India’s law forces have been making changes in their method, their thinking pattern and justice implementation. According to the changing mode of cases and conflicts happening around there are some updates are needed to make.
Nominal Damage is all made for the qualified immunity. The more you are thinking is settled, mature and sorted on how to live an undisrupted life. Such changes in law enforcements would make a huge step in establishing a new point of view towards unusual and unquestionable legal matters.