Sie sind auf Seite 1von 4

DeFunis v. Odegaard :: 416 U.S. 312 (1974) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center 2019. 1. 8.

오후 1(36

DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312 (1974)

Justia Opinion Summary and Annotations

Annotation

Primary Holding
Mootness ends a case when the parties no longer have opposing legal interests or any concrete or
definite controversy between them.

Facts
DeFunis was denied admission at the University of Washington Law School, a state-operated
institution. He sued a state education official, Odegaard, as well as the law school admissions
committee on the basis that it had violated the Equal Protection Clause because its policies and
procedures had resulted in discrimination against him because of his race. He sought a mandatory
injunction from the trial court that would compel Odegaard to grant him admission into the first-
year law school class because his application had been unconstitutionally denied. He prevailed in
the lower court and was admitted to the law school, pending Odegaard's appeal. The state Supreme
Court eventually ruled that the law school admissions policy was constitutional.

DeFunis received a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court, which stayed the judgment of
the Washington Supreme Court until the U.S. Supreme Court had resolved the case. DeFunis was
already in his third and final year of law school when the Court granted his petition.

Opinions

Per Curiam

No matter the decision that the Court might eventually reach on the constitutionality of the
admissions policy, the student will complete his law school program at the end of the current term,

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/416/312/ 1/4페이지
DeFunis v. Odegaard :: 416 U.S. 312 (1974) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center 2019. 1. 8. 오후 1(36

for which he has already registered. This factual situation makes the case moot, and Article III
prevents the Court from reviewing the substantive constitutional questions associated with it.

Dissent
William Orville Douglas (Author)

It is important to resolve these issues on their merits, so the case should not be deemed to be moot.

Dissent
William Joseph Brennan, Jr. (Author)

It is possible that the student might not graduate after this term because of illness or another
unforeseen development. The case thus should not be deemed moot. Moreover, the voluntary
cessation of illegal conduct does not allow a party to cite this doctrine. The same issue could arise
again with another applicant of the same race to whom the school applies the same policy, and the
public interest would be served by a judicial resolution of these issues that forestalls duplicative
litigation. It is inevitable that another similar case will arise in the future, and the record does not
require a finding of mootness. The principle of avoiding constitutional questions when possible
does not equate to avoidance of all potentially challenging issues.

Case Commentary
Mootness is the opposite of ripeness in a sense, since it applies to dismiss a case when the issues
have been resolved rather than when they are not yet ready to be resolved.

Syllabus Case

U.S. Supreme Court

DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312 (1974)

DeFunis v. Odegaard

No. 73-235
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/416/312/ 2/4페이지
DeFunis v. Odegaard :: 416 U.S. 312 (1974) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center 2019. 1. 8. 오후 1(36

No. 73-235

Argued February 26, 1974

Decided April 23, 1974

416 U.S. 312

Syllabus

After being denied admission to a state-operated law school, petitioner brought this suit on behalf
of himself alone for injunctive relief, claiming that the school's admissions policy racially
discriminated against him in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment. The trial court agreed and ordered the school to admit him in the fall of 1971. The
Washington Supreme Court reversed, holding that the school's admissions policy was not
unconstitutional. MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, as Circuit Justice, stayed that judgment pending this
Court's final disposition of the case, with the result that petitioner was in his final school year when
this Court considered his petition for certiorari. After oral argument, the Court was informed that
petitioner had registered for his final quarter. Respondents have assured the Court that this
registration is fully effective regardless of the ultimate disposition of the case.

Held: Because petitioner will complete law school at the end of the term for which he has
registered regardless of any decision this Court might reach on the merits, the Court cannot,
consistently with the limitations of Art. III of the Constitution, consider the substantive
constitutional issues, and the case is moot.

(a) Mootness here does not depend upon a "voluntary cessation" of the school's admissions
practices, but upon the simple fact that petitioner is in his final term, and the school's fixed policy
to permit him to complete the term.

(b) The case presents no question that is "capable of repetition, yet evading review," since
petitioner will never again have to go through the school's admissions process, and since it does not
follow that the issue petitioner raises will in the future evade review merely because this case did
not reach the Court until the eve of petitioner's graduation.

82 Wash.2d 11, 507 P.2d 1169, vacated and remanded.

Page 416 U. S. 314

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/416/312/ 3/4페이지
DeFunis v. Odegaard :: 416 U.S. 312 (1974) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center 2019. 1. 8. 오후 1(36

Oral Argument - February 26, 1974


Opinion Announcement - April 23, 1974

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports.
Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal
developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness,
or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official
sources.

Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our
site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of
law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any
attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/416/312/ 4/4페이지