36) DeFunis vs Odegaard

Defunis vs Odegaard

Facts: DeFunis, a white jewish student of Spanish-Portuguese decent, applied for admission to the University of ashington in !"#!$ During the time in which the plainti% applied, the admission committee assigned less weight to the minority student&s scores and reviewed their applications separately from those of other applicants$ 't the time when the plainti%&s application was under review, some minority students were admitted, in which majority of them had scores which are lower that the plainti%&s score$ (nitially, the plainti% was placed on a waiting list and su)se*uently su)se*uently noti+ed that he was denied admission to the law school$ onse*uently, the plainti% +led a suit against the law school claiming that its admission policy violated the *ual Protection lause of the Fourteenth 'mendment$ ' state trial court agreed with the plainti% and ordered the o.cials of the school to admit him$ /owever, after the plainti% started his studies, the Supreme ourt of ashington reversed in favor of the law school, e0plaining that its a.rmative action program program was a constitutionally permissi)le permissi)le admissions tool justi+ed )y several state interests$ 1he court found that the law school&s a.rmative action program served the state&s interest in helping to diversify pu)lic education$  1he case came )efore )efore the Supreme Supreme ourt ourt of the United United States for a full hearing hearing when DeFunis was in his +nal year of law school$ 'lthough the law school assured that it would allow DeFunis to graduate regardless of the ourt&s decision, )oth parties contended that mootness did not e0ist to )loc2 formal adjudication of the matter$ (ssue: an a case )e adjudicated when su)ject matter jurisdiction jurisdiction is lac2ing due to mootness, if adjudication of the suit would resolve an important social issue3

/eld: 4o$ hen a federal court&s determination of a legal issue is no longer necessary to compel the result originally sought, sought, the case is moot and federal courts lac2 the power to hear it$  1he constitutional constitutional )asis of the mootness doctrine is found in 'rticle 'rticle ((( of the onstitution which re*uires the e0istence of a case or controversy$ 1hus, a real and live controversy must e0ist at every stage of review$

5ecause petitioner will complete law school at the end of the term for which he has registered regardless of any decision this ourt might reach on the merits, the ourt cannot, consistently with the limitations of 'rt$ ((( of the onstitution, consider the su)stantive constitutional issues, and the case is moot$  1he court held that when the original controversy has disappeared prior to development of the suit, it is deemed moot and a trial must not proceed for lac2 of su)ject matter jurisdiction$ 1hat a matter deemed moot leaves an important social issue unresolved is of no conse*uence$ 6ootness here does not depend upon a 7voluntary cessation7 of the school8s admissions practices )ut upon the simple fact that petitioner is in his +nal term, and the school8s +0ed policy to permit him to complete the term$