Supreme Court says no to damages for 'emotional distress' in civil rights case. Here's why that's good news

Contributing sentiments towards policy:

53% : Federal anti-discrimination law works like a contract with the federal government.
50% :Congress may attach conditions to receiving federal funds issued to the states or other entities pursuant to the spending clause, including the condition that the entities must comply with anti-discrimination law.
50% : These laws include not just the Rehabilitation Act and Affordable Care Act, but also Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 (prohibiting sex discrimination in federally funded education institutions) and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (prohibiting race discrimination at educational institutions).
48% : That federal funding is issued pursuant to the spending clause of the Constitution, which gives Congress the power to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and the general Welfare of the United States."
48% : And although these anti-discrimination statutes may be enforced by private suits and allow successful plaintiffs to recover monetary relief, that monetary relief must be in the form of "compensatory" damages -- i.e., what the plaintiff actually lost in terms of physical harm or out-of-pocket expenses because of the discrimination.
45% : The court reasoned that the kind of anti-discrimination law relied upon by Cummings -- laws that act as a kind of contract between the government and the entity receiving government funding -- does not permit recovery of damages for emotional distress because emotional injury is not generally recoverable for breach of contract.
40% : After all, there is no shortage of precedent on the pretextual use of anti-discrimination law by plaintiffs claiming to have suffered emotional distress at the hands of business owners who hold traditional-but-unfashionable religious beliefs.
38% : The attachment of liability for strictly dignitary injuries (emotional, mental, or reputational harm) also could have let loose a torrent of frivolous claims for alleged violations of federal anti-discrimination law, likely extending beyond disability law.
29% : In an opinion authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court held in Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller that damages for emotional distress are not recoverable in private actions to enforce the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 or Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act .

*Our bias meter rating uses data science including sentiment analysis, machine learning and our proprietary algorithm for determining biases in news articles. Bias scores are on a scale of -100% to 100% with higher negative scores being more liberal and higher positive scores being more conservative, and 0% being neutral. The rating is an independent analysis and is not affiliated nor sponsored by the news source or any other organization.