# What is the significance of Docket no.

19-968?

legalpdf.io · August 4, 2026

> Docket No. 19-968 refers to the Supreme Court case Uzuegbunam v. Also worth reading: What is the significance of Witness 16 in the FBI interview...

Docket No.

19-968 refers to the Supreme Court case Uzuegbunam v.

**Also worth reading:** [What is the significance of Witness 16 in the FBI interview Exhibit D 470 ATT 4?](https://legalpdf.io/knowledge/what_is_the_significance_of_witness_16_in_the_fbi_interview_exhibit_d_470_att_4.php) · [How is AI legal education reform expected to evolve by 2027, and what does this mean for eDiscovery and document drafting?](https://legalpdf.io/knowledge/how_is_ai_legal_education_reform_expected_to_evolve_by_2027_and_what_does_this_mean_for_ediscovery_and_document_drafting.php) · [What does the AI bar exam analytics 2027 reveal about legal education and practice?](https://legalpdf.io/knowledge/what_does_the_ai_bar_exam_analytics_2027_reveal_about_legal_education_and_practice.php)

Preczewski, which was decided on March 8, 2021.

The key legal issue was whether Uzuegbunam could seek nominal damages (a small symbolic amount) even though the college had changed its policy and no longer prevented his religious expression.

In an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Uzuegbunam, holding that the availability of nominal damages was sufficient to maintain a case and prevent it from becoming moot.

The Court's decision overturned a lower court ruling that had found the case moot because the college had changed its policy and Uzuegbunam could no longer show concrete harm.

The Uzuegbunam decision was seen as a victory for free speech advocates, as it established that plaintiffs can seek nominal damages to vindicate their constitutional rights, even if they can no longer obtain other forms of relief.

The case had implications for the ongoing debate over the separation of church and state and the extent to which the government can restrict religious expression on public college campuses.

Justice Clarence Thomas authored the majority opinion, while Justice Samuel Alito wrote a concurring opinion and Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented.

The case was closely watched by religious liberty groups and civil liberties organizations, who filed amicus briefs on both sides of the dispute.

Docket No.

19-968 was the first case argued and decided by the Supreme Court during the COVID-19 pandemic, with oral arguments conducted remotely.

The Uzuegbunam decision was seen as a potentially significant precedent for future cases involving the ability to seek nominal damages to redress alleged constitutional violations.

Canonical: https://legalpdf.io/knowledge/what_is_the_significance_of_docket_no19-968.php
Markdown: https://legalpdf.io/knowledge/what_is_the_significance_of_docket_no19-968.php/index.md