252 (1978) (“Common-law courts traditionally have vindicated deprivations of certain ‘absolute’ rights that are not shown to have caused actual injury through the award of a nominal sum of money.”); Matusick v. Erie Cty. Water Auth., 757 F.3d 31, 64 (2d Cir.2014) (“It is well established that an award of nominal damages is not discretionary where a substantive constitutional right has been violated.”) (citation omitted); Gibeau v. Nellis, 18 F.3d 107, 110-11 (2d Cir.1994) (same); Smith v. Coughlin, 748 F.2d 783, 789 (2d Cir.1984) (“even when a litigant fails to prove actual com-pensable injury, he is entitled to an award of nominal damages upon proof of violation of a substantive constitutional right”); Birnbaum, 436 F.Supp. at 987, aff'd in part, rev’d in part, 588 F.2d at 333-35 (<HOLDING>). '■ By making the deprivation of such rights
holding that defendant cannot suffer compensable harm when enjoined from an unlawful activity holding that chilling effect claim must still be rooted in specific present objective harm or a threat of specific future harm to convey standing recognizing that violation of privacy right even without objective harm is still compensable holding that sexual assault of a minor resulting in psychological harm may be compensable under the tca even in the absence of personal injury holding that even where the underlying complaint made no mention of the right of privacy a violation of privacy  is implicit in a tcpa faxad claim