Victory! SCOTUS rules in favor of Christian student


Georgia Gwinnett College tried to shut down a Christian student’s speech, but the officials changed the policy when they were sued.  But unless this case is adjudicated, it will happen again and again. The Supreme Court of the United States will allow it to move forward, and only Justice Roberts objected.

The Supreme Court ruled that a Christian student in Georgia, Chike Uzuegbunam, could pursue a lawsuit challenging speech restrictions at his college even though he sought only nominal damages.

Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority in the 8-to-1 decision, said a request for even a token sum, typically a dollar, satisfied the Constitution’s requirement that federal courts decide only actual cases or controversies in cases. The fact that the college had withdrawn the speech code challenged in the suit, he wrote, did not make the case moot.

“Despite being small,” Justice Thomas wrote, “nominal damages are certainly concrete.”

In a dissent, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said the majority’s approach would have the effect of “turning judges into advice columnists.” Robert’s regard for liberty seems to depend on the money involved.

The lawsuit for the student is about protecting the religious liberty and free speech rights of others. The Left wants the State to become the new god.


After Chike started attending Georgia Gwinnett College in July 2016, he saw the college as a way to spread the word of God. He sees it as a “loving thing.”

He handed out pamphlets in a plaza on campus and talked about the Gospel with interested students as they passed.

Not long after he began, some college officials approached Chike. They informed him that he was not allowed to distribute materials or talk to other students about his beliefs unless he had reserved a time in a campus “speech zone.”

Georgia Gwinnett College had two speech zones making up about 0.0015% of campus. On top of that, they were only open for student use for 10% of the week—just 18 hours on weekdays and closed on the weekends.

Chike did what the officials told him to do and received approval.

Just the same, officers approached him, took his ID card, and told him to stop speaking because someone had complained — one person.

According to these officers, Chike’s speech violated the speech code in the Student Code of Conduct, which allowed the college to stop speech if someone complained.

As a result of the college’s policies, Chike was not allowed to speak his message anywhere. After seeing how officials shut down Chike, Joseph decided not to speak on campus at all.

Because public officials silenced these two students on their campus, ADF filed a lawsuit on their behalf.

Joseph Bradford, who was also supposed to speak, chose not to after Chike was banned, and joined Chike’s lawsuit.

Here is the Briefing  and the 28-page Ruling


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
1 Comment
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments