Look what Taylor Swift made the Supreme Court do.

Citing the pop icon, the Supreme Court recently hinted approval for lawsuits that seek only “nominal damages,” in a case that could raise concerns for media companies facing newsgathering claims.

The issue in Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, was whether a Georgia public college student could continue his lawsuit after the college changed its free speech policy and withdrew its threat to discipline the student for proselytizing his religion on campus. Because the student had no injuries, the college argued the student’s lawsuit was moot. The student argued he was entitled to “nominal damages” – generally a trivial amount of money such as one dollar – to prove that his rights were violated, even if he wasn’t entitled to monetary compensation.   

During oral argument before the Court, Justice Elena Kagan raised the 2015 lawsuit brought by Taylor Swift where the singer/songwriter sought one dollar in nominal damages after a Denver radio host groped her during a preconcert photo session. “The jury gave her one dollar,” Kagan noted. “Why not?” As Justice Amy Coney Barrett explained, “[W]hat Taylor Swift wanted was … vindication of the moral right, the legal right, that sexual assault is reprehensible and wrong.”

Media companies defending claims with no real injuries – for example, claims for trespassing on private property when filming a documentary – have argued that nominal damage awards chill free speech because the cost of defending such claims is prohibitively expensive. Thus, without any real injury, the First Amendment precludes such claims from going forward.

But the Justice’s comments in Uzuegbunam suggest they believe nominal damages play an important role in the legal system, setting up a possible clash between the First Amendment rights of the media, and the moral rights of an aggrieved plaintiff.

---