U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for an 8-1 court majority yesterday that a Georgia Gwinnett College student, Chike Uzuegbunam, “experienced a completed violation of his constitutional rights when respondents enforced their speech policies against him.” Uzuegbunam was joined in a 2016 lawsuit against the college by another former student, Joseph Bradford. He said he withheld sharing his Christian faith on campus because of the college’s treatment of Uzuegbunam.
Now the two can declare a victory for free speech.
The high court ruling said Uzuegbunam, cited by campus police for “disorderly conduct” for speaking about his Christian faith and distributing religious literature on campus, can sue officials for violating his free speech rights. The lawsuit had asked the Supreme Court to ensure that campus policies and administrators at Georgia Gwinnett College comply with the First Amendment.
“This case reminds us that there is no room for trust in the relationship between the citizenry and the government,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute which assisted with the suit. “Trust the government to police itself, and it will sidestep the law at every turn. The only way to ensure that government officials obey the law and respect the rights of the citizenry, as Thomas Jefferson recognized, is to bind them with ‘the chains of the Constitution.’”
What Triggered the Lawsuit
A Rutherford Institute statement puts the overall case in perspective:
“Because Chike’s faith requires that he share his religious beliefs with others, he sought to do so in 2016 by passing out literature and speaking to students from a spacious concrete plaza near the college’s library. A campus security officer stopped him and warned that Chike could not distribute written materials there because he was not in one of two ‘speech zones’ the college had established. Under the college’s policies, students were required to reserve times for one of the two “speech zones,” which consisted of one patio and one sidewalk that amounted to 0.0015% of total area of the campus. The policies also required students apply for a reservation at least three days in advance and gave college officials unbridled discretion to decide who could speak, when they could speak, and what materials they could give out.
“Although Chike properly reserved a time for sharing his faith from one of the zones, he was again stopped from speaking by a campus security officer. The officer told him that because someone had complained about his speech, he was engaged in “disorderly conduct” under college policies.”
That’s when he filed the lawsuit against the college alleging that its policies to prevent him from engaging in religious speech violated the First Amendment. The college moved to dismiss the case as moot because it had changed its ‘“speech zone’ policies— and a trial court granted the motion. The Christian student, however, didn’t give up. He appealed his case all the way to the Supreme Court. He and (later) Bradford argued the case is not moot because both are entitled to nominal damages for the interference with their First Amendment rights.
In its amicus brief, The Rutherford Institute wrote that dismissal of the lawsuit violated long-established court precedent affirming the right of citizens to obtain an award of nominal damages against the government officials when they violate a person’s constitutional rights.
The sole dissent from the majority ruling came from Chief Justice John Roberts, who argued the case was moot because Uzuegbunam and Bradford are no longer students at the college. The Supreme Court’s opinion and the amicus brief from The Rutherford Institute in Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski are available at www.rutherford.org.
College’s New President Supports Free Expression
It should also be noted that this author recently interviewed Georgia Gwinnett College President Jann Joseph, who assumed office just two years ago. When I asked her if the college now supports free expression, Joseph replied:
“I support an environment where First Amendment rights are respected and people can speak out even if it is offensive to others. We are a very inclusive campus and it is important that all voices are heard and their positions respected.”
