Nominal Damages

Katie Barlow, lawyer and media editor of SCOTUSBlog, sits in for David on today’s episode. Sarah ...

By
31

Katie Barlow, lawyer and media editor of SCOTUSBlog, sits in for David on today’s episode. Sarah and Katie kick off things by discussing the decision handed down in Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, in which an 8-1 majority ruled that even seeking “nominal damages” can be enough to give a plaintiff standing. Plus, Katie explains how her time working for Nina Tottenberg at NPR helped her prepare for translating SCOTUS decisions into one-minute TikTok videos. And, of course, she weighs in on the “should you go to law school” debate. Make sure you stick around to the end to hear Sarah and Katie sing the praises of Oprah and react to the Prince Harry and Megan Markle interview on CBS.

Show Notes:

–Nominal damages decision

–SCOTUSBlog article about the decision

–Nina Totenberg’s Twitter

–Katie Barlow’s Twitter (which has all of her TikToks)

–CBS’ Harry and Megan interview

By
Comments (31)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Bill Dyer (aka Beldar)

    Ms. Barlow was an interesting guest! And of course, SCOTUSblog is indispensable.

    Regarding $1 damage awards: My favorite wasn't a case of nominal damages, but rather jury contempt for BOTH SIDES. The USFL claimed to have been driven out of business by the NFL through the NFL's alleged elimination of competition. The USFL claimed of damages of $567 million dollars which, when trebled under the federal antitrust laws, would have amounted to more than $1.7 billion:

    ===begin quote===
    Another important point in the case was the relative credibility of Rozelle and of New Jersey General owner Donald Trump, who offered widely differing accounts on a meeting they had.

    According to Trump, Rozelle suggested an NFL franchise--acceptance of Trump’s team--if Trump would keep the USFL out of litigation. Rozelle testified that he had met with Trump just to see what he’d say.

    Counsel for both sides hammered at the poor credibility at hand. Myerson, in his summation, repeatedly referred to the commissioner as Alvin Peter Rozelle, with complete disdain for Rozelle’s honesty. Rothman characterized Trump, a wealthy New York builder, as the worst kind of snake who was selling his colleagues down the river so he could affect a merger of a few rich teams.

    In the end, jurors didn’t particularly like either man. [Juror] Sanchez felt that Rozelle was trying to “cover up” something. “Definitely a cover-up. He was being devious (in his testimony).”

    On the other hand, she said: “Trump had us completely befuddled. Why would he call Rozelle if he wasn’t meeting him with some ulterior motive.”

    ===end quote===
    link: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1986-07-30-sp-18643-story.html

    The finding of NFL liability with only a $1 damages verdict for the USFL was the jury's sending a middle finger to both leagues and both of their star witnesses. When trebled and with prejudgment interest, the total final judgment amount was $3.76.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    Have I mentioned how much I like the intro? It’s awesome. Especially the bit that I believe is from Parks and Rec (the scene where April takes Ron to the hospital for his hernia, I think, although I’d have to check). Don’t get rid of that bit! Jonah got rid of the, “Can you dig it?” line from his intro, which was the best part of the intro. Although, I still like the Remnant podcast a lot and don’t want to come off as the guy complaining about something trivial.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Paul Britton

    In my practice, which sometimes included civil rights litigation, often filed simply for the purpose of vindication, the issue of court-ordered attorneys' fees was always big. If a case was thrown out altogether on the ground that there were no provable damages, the plaintiff was precluded from getting an attorneys' fee award. You had to win SOMETHING to be considered a substantially prevailing party presumptively entitled to attorneys' fees. Plaintiffs' lawyers cared about this -- even (perhaps especially) public interest lawyers. Defense lawyers cared too -- you needed to get the ENTIRE case thrown out.

    So I was a little surprised that the issue didn't come between Sarah and her guest. Surely, if nominal damages are now favored, plaintiffs will more likely to be able to recover awards of attorneys' fees. That will make it more practical for a lawyer to take on civil rights claims like the one in Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski.

    Collapse
  4. Butch Kamena

    Oprah is a good interviewer on one level. She asks fairly difficult questions in a warm way, which does bring out some depth. But she doesn't follow up. So the celebrity gets to pour out their heart, but none of the facts actually get challenged. Fine if you're just talking about somebody's personal relationships and their emotions about a movie or an album. But this is someone attacking a central institution of the British state. It isn't the same.
    To give just one minor example, the idea of 'holiday parties' for tabloid editors went completely unchallenged, even though there's very little evidence it's true, and is actually quite inconsistent with most understandings of the crown's relationship with the British press.
    But accuracy really isn't the point here. It's to set a mood. Those headlines designed to show how awful the press is? According to the Telegraph, some of them were from US publications like the National Enquirer and Us Weekly.
    One wonders what a 15-minute interview with Andrew Marr or Stephen Sackur of the BBC would be like. Megan and Harry would never consent to such a thing, which is precisely why you should view everything drawn out by Oprah with a very critical eye.

    Collapse
  5. Cecilia

    Thank you for praising Oprah as an interviewer; watching the segment I thought she was really effective but if asked afterwards, I couldnt articulate why. Then I read the transcript (Thank you The Sun UK)

    My first thought was even though she's wildly rich, Oprah has the mindset of a totally normal person. She asks the questions that normal people would ask their friends if they had married Prince Harry and it had all gone horribly wrong.

    But as mentioned on the pod, she intertwined her curiosity with great interviewing skills
    After questioning them about certain tricky topics, she let them rest for a bit, then readdressed them later once the smoke had cleared. And she always got a great answer.

    But most importantly she refused to end the discussion if she was still confused about something, well knowing her viewers were doubly confused. That is why I love her.

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Anne W (Raw5254)

    Why am I supposed to care about Meghan and Harry? I’ve always liked Elizabeth. She’s been a big part of history, but I’m starting to wonder what exactly is the point of the Royals these days. Yes, it’s fun seeing the parades, the beautiful horses, tours of the castle(s), but what exactly do they do? None of the children and grandchildren seem to be all that bright, but maybe it’s just that we keep getting to see all the things that would normally be limited to the tabloids.

    Collapse
  7. Jennifer Stanowski

    As a person who has followed the royal family for all my life, I have no emotions about the H&M interview other than sadness about it all. A family breakup is never easy to watch. I perked up when you both discussed it, thinking some insight would cause me to feel one way or another, but nothing.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Grandma B

      For several years before I retired I had calendars in my office from a company called ‘Despair.com’ that featured pretty pictures (like those in motivational posters), but paired up with more realistic captions. (Example: A photo of two businesspeople shaking hands with the caption: “Consulting: If you’re not part of the solution, there’s good money to be made in prolonging the problem”.) I loved those things. Anyway, the one I thought of when listening to Meghan whining to Oprah was the picture of a broken chain with the caption: “Dysfunction: The only consistent feature of all of your dissatisfying relationships is you.”

      Collapse
      1. Ellen

        Touche

        Collapse
    2. Ellen

      Yep, same here. I remember the Diana/Bashir interview and how everyone said this would topple the royals, that Diana won, etc etc. As time went on, however, and facts emerged, she didn't look as good, things stabilized for the Firm and to your point re family, she later admitted regretting having done it because of William's very negative response. Then watching Meghan say she couldn't imagine hurting her child (in a comment re her dad), I just thought, 'hoo boy, you're destined to find out in about 15 years when your kids start asking why they don't know their relatives'. The short-sightedness of it all was staggering. The whole thing was just tawdry and sad.

      Collapse
      1. Jennifer Stanowski

        Yeah, their kids. I can't imagine, it will be weird for them their entire lives. Always royal but never being able to enter that life. If they had stayed, they could have faded into the background gradually over the years, without giving up all the family ties. But, neither H nor M seemed to jump into this with eyes wide open. I liked the John Oliver clip re-circulating.

        Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        Kmregan7

        I just don't understand why they felt the need. They left (supposedly) for more privacy and to have private lives. So...just live your private lives? You don't need to explain to anyone, much less the entire world, what happened, or why, or what people said, etc. That's not living privately.

        Collapse
  8. David Kuhn

    David cleverly had his anniversary fall on this date, thereby allowing him to avoid pronouncing the name of either party to this case, Uzuegbunam or Preczewski. (For the record, Sarah didn’t say them much either).

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    PGG645

    I didn’t watch the interview but you can’t turn on the tv, or a podcast, without listening to what Harry and Megan said. Apparently they are poor, downtrodden victims of everything and everyone, and we should all feel sorry for them living a life of luxury in their mansion. I’m sure royal life was stressful, especially for someone who was not familiar with the system, but maybe they should not have rushed into marriage and taken some time to learn how things work.

    I really found the part about suicidal thoughts very disingenuous. Totally believe that she may have been depressed, but that she thought to get help by going to the palace HR office? Really? Never occurred to her to call her doctor and ask for an immediate referral to a therapist, or to see Harry’s therapist (whom he has talked about repeatedly), or even to contact one of the mental health professionals in the group that Harry and William sponsors? All of whom, as medical professionals, could be counted on to provide confidentiality? The “HR office” part seems added to make the palace look really uncaring. Since they are getting so much positive attention, they succeeded in presenting themselves as the victims and his family as the bad guys. I guess they will be renouncing their Duke and Duchess titles now to make a clean break, right?

    Collapse
    1. Brett C

      Celebrity makes all of this really weird to me and hard to parse. How much is this them wanting to use their platform to raise awareness of mental health issues and how much is this them playing out a family drama on stage to generate a media empire. It's probably both, though my cynical side leans towards the latter. I'd rather just ignore all of it rather than shoehorn real people into either a hero/villain category. I hope everyone can find healing here - healed from their pain and their motives purified.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        PGG645

        I wish I could ignore it but this ridiculous story is everywhere. In my opinion, they calculated how much they damage they could do to get this story lots of legs, again, knowing his family is not going to respond in kind. They’re liberals, and the media here loves liberals who are “victims” so they will have praise heaped upon them as his family is trashed. I don’t know how that family can heal, but I just wish Harry hadn’t foisted his drama on the rest of us.

        Collapse
  10. Michael

    Because I want to give you cover for discussing the Royals during the podcast, I present this piece of trivia. I took the bar exam in July, 1981. The day of the multistate portion of the exam was the same day Charles and Diana were married. While I remember the connection, you can imagine that I was focused on something else!

    Collapse
Load More