All the members of America’s highest court – save one – say it’s important to protect the principle of free speech, even when the offending policy no longer exists.
In a near-unanimous ruling (8-1), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that government officials must be held accountable when they violate constitutionally protected freedoms. The ruling came in a case involving two former students – Chike Uzuegbunam and Joseph Bradford – who were stopped by Georgia Gwinnett College officials from sharing their faith publicly on campus in the summer of 2016.
One News Now related the following comments by Uzuegbunam in an earlier story:
“First, they said I could only speak in the two tiny speech zones, and only then at prescribed times and with a reservation. Later, when I was standing in the speech zone I had reserved, I was told I could not speak at all, and all I wanted to do was share the good news of Jesus Christ and how He offers us eternal life freely.”
Kristen Waggoner is general counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, the firm representing Uzuegbunam and Bradford. ADF argued that the college officials clearly violated the students’ constitutional rights.
“The Supreme Court has rightly affirmed that government officials should be held accountable for the injuries they cause. When public officials violate constitutional rights, it causes serious harm to the victims,” says Waggoner.
When ADF challenged the school’s speech policies, Georgia Gwinnett argued the students’ speech should receive no constitutional protection, changed its policies, then claimed it should be able to avoid any penalty for violating Uzuegbunam’s free-speech rights.
“Officials within our public institutions shouldn’t get a free pass for violating constitutional rights on campus or anywhere else,” says Waggoner. “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.”
In an earlier interview, Waggoner stated Uzuegbunam was seeking “nominal damages.” According to ADF, nominal damages “redress a constitutional injury when a plaintiff is unable or does not want to put a dollar figure on a lost right,” and ensures that individuals’ rights are “scrupulously observed.”
Waggoner adds that the university students were supported by groups representing diverse ideological viewpoints “because the threat to our constitutionally protected freedoms doesn’t stop with free speech rights or a college campus.”
Over two dozen groups, including the American Center for Law and Justice, the Christian Legal Society, the American Humanist Association, and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), filed amicus briefs supporting Uzuegbunam and Bradford.
The sole dissenter in today’s ruling was Chief Justice John Roberts, arguing the case is moot because the two are no longer students at the college, the challenged restrictions no longer exist, and the petitioners haven’t alleged actual damages.
The case is Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski. The high court heard arguments on January 12, 2021.
The sole dissenter in today’s ruling was Chief Justice John Roberts,
It would appear that Roberts is a dishonorable Democrat.
Shocking that even the Obama leftists on the Court voted for free speech but Roberts did not. If by some miracle GOP gets the House and Senate back, despite the massive vote fraud Dems have perfected, they MUST impeach and remove Roberts.
I am shocked they all voted FOR free speech.. W hat with some of their assinine calls over the past year, i feared they’d all vote against it..
“The sole dissenter in today’s ruling was Chief Justice John Roberts”. How does one spell toxic waste, John Roberts?
ALL commucrats are wastes of oxygen and food.
This is the same BS they gave for NOT deciding on the voter fraud laws being broken. What is their job anyway? if protecting the people from voter fraud is NOT one of their reasons for being there, they should all resign. imagine- they stated the case was MOOT because it already happened? WTH!! Can you think of a more lame excuse for not trying the case? in other words, if a murder happened, and it wasn’t solved, and it takes years to find the murderer, does the murder have a defense- that it already happened, therefore, its not important, case dismissed. Not only did it happen, the person is still dead, and the criminal is still out there to do it again. My point to this is that they need to stop all this NOW before it happens again. This idiotic decision was blasted by Justice Thomas, and yet, they still did the same thing again, with the Wisconsin case. and Roberts- I cant say enough about how he is a treacherous man to this country.
Exactly. The dems don’t NEED to pack the court with libtards, when FOUR of the so-called conservatives, STILL FEEL a fair and free election, with no fraud, is part of their duty to rule on..
Took them long enough to get to court…….Roberto part of the problem
And if the dems get their way, there won’t be any challenges from here on out, that even make it that far.
Article III, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution states, “The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour,”. Clearly Roberts has repeatedly been negligent in the performance of his duties and needs to be removed.
This action should immediately be done after the removal of the usurper Biden is removed, as he can be afforded NO benefit of office, the buffoon was never elected, never will be elected. Trump won in a landslide unlike any this nation has ever seen and Roberts is one of the greatest detriments to justice we have ever seen, absolutely contrary to what his position is intended to be! He is by NO definition, a “Justice!”
PITY we lack a GOP with the spine, to even CONTEMPLATE impeaching these judges..
john roberts, satan’s little helper
“the case is moot because the two are no longer students at the college, the challenged restrictions no longer exist, and the petitioners haven’t alleged actual damages.”
a. Not moot. This is an attack against the Constitution, which you swore an oath to protect.
b. Doesn’t matter if the restrictions no longer exist. They should have never existed.
c. The actual damages are assumed, in not being able to speak freely. You shouldn’t have to prove why that’s an issue.
Impeach this fool now.
Just like when the other year, they ‘dismissed’ an ANTI 2a case,’cause the local authorities removed the law. THE FACT THE LAW WAS EVER PUT into place, was against the constitution.. THAT they’ve removed it (FOR NOW) is not a reason, to NOT HEAR A CASE against the law OR THOSE WHO PUT It into place.
Using the Democrats’ policy (re: Post Presidency Impeachment), then institutions should NOT be able to “just change their policy” to evade litigation consequences!
The policy WAS in place (at the time of the harm), and the SCOTUS should reinforce the principles of the 1st Amendment!