Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
P is an evangelical Christian who believes that an important part of exercising his religion includes sharing his faith. P engaged in conversations with interested students and handed out religious literature at an outdoor plaza near the library. P was told that campus policy prohibited distributing written religious materials in that area and told him to stop. P complied. P then visited the Director of the Office of Student Integrity and P was told that he could not continue speaking about his religion if he stopped distributing materials. There were two designated “free speech expression areas,” for such activity which together make up just 0.0015 percent of campus. P had to secure a permit. P got a permit to use the free speech zone. P began speaking on the day allowed by his permit, and police again told him to stop, this time saying that people had complained about his speech. The free speech zone could not be used to say anything that “disturbs the peace and/or comfort of person(s).” P said that his speech violated this policy because it had led to complaints. P complied with the order to stop speaking. Another student who shares P’s faith, Joseph Bradford, decided not to speak about religion because of these events. Ps sued a number of college officials for a violation of the First Amendment. They sought nominal damages and injunctive relief. Ds moved to dismiss, arguing that the suit was moot, because of the policy change. Ps agreed that injunctive relief was no longer available, but they disagreed that the case was moot. Ps wanted nominal damages. The District Court dismissed the case, holding that the students’ claim for nominal damages was insufficient by itself to establish standing. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co