Most important statement in the opinion:

For purposes of this appeal, it is undisputed that Uzuegbunam experienced a completed violation of his constitutional rights when respondents enforced their speech policies against him. Because “every violation [of a right] imports damage,” nominal damages can redress Uzuegbunam’s injury even if he cannot or chooses not to quantify that harm in economic terms.*

Roberts essentially tries to make the case that because the college reversed their policy (long after the fact) then there was no harm and the plaintiffs had no standing...

If that sounds familiar then you might have been paying attention the last couple months...

Important revelation: a violation of a right is enough to give standing... such as our right to vote?

Most important statement in the opinion:

For purposes of this appeal, it is undisputed that Uzuegbunam experienced a completed violation of his constitutional rights when respondents enforced their speech policies against him. Because “every violation [of a right] imports damage,” nominal damages can redress Uzuegbunam’s injury even if he cannot or chooses not to quantify that harm in economic terms.*

Roberts essentially tries to make the case that because the college reversed their policy (long after the fact) then there was no harm and the plaintiffs had no standing...

If that sounds familiar then you might have been paying attention the last couple months...

Most important statement in the opinion:

For purposes of this appeal, it is undisputed that Uzuegbunam experienced a completed violation of his constitutional rights when respondents enforced their speech policies against him. Because “every violation [of a right] imports damage,” nominal damages can redress Uzuegbunam’s injury even if he cannot or chooses not to quantify that harm in economic terms.*