Gwinnett College Supreme Court Ruling: Read It For Yourself

Andrew Donaldson

Born and raised in West Virginia, Andrew has been the Managing Editor of Ordinary Times since 2018, is a widely published opinion writer, and appears in media, radio, and occasionally as a talking head on TV. He can usually be found misspelling/misusing words on Twitter@four4thefire. Andrew is the host of Heard Tell podcast. Subscribe to Andrew'sHeard Tell Substack for free here:

Related Post Roulette

3 Responses

  1. Oscar Gordon says:

    So Roberts dissent was one of mootness, and not on the legal or constitutional principles involved. I can respect that, even if I disagree with it.Report

  2. Marchmaine says:

    Burnishing his “lack of standing” and “moot” positions for the difficult cases ahead where he needs an outcome, but has not a reasoned path to get there.Report

  3. CJColucci says:

    I wonder why anyone bothered. Thirty-odd years ago, defense lawyers were always afraid of $1 and fees awards, where the plaintiff gets a buck for making his or her point, nothing for any actual injuries, and a big, fat award of fees for the plaintiff’s lawyers. Eventually, the Supremes decided, in Farrar v. Hobby, that even though a plaintiff who got nothing more than a dollar in nominal damages was, technically, a “prevailing party,” entitled to a “reasonable attorney’s fee,” the reasonable attorney’s fee in a $1 nominal damages case was, presumptively, zero. Something must be going on here, but what?Report