 | This article may be in need of reorganization to comply with Wikipedia's layout guidelines. (April 2018) |
| DeFunis v. Odegaard | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued February 26, 1974 Decided April 23, 1974 | |
| Full case name | Marco DeFunis, Jr., et al. v. Odegaard, et al. |
| Citations | 416 U.S. 312 (more) 94 S. Ct. 1704; 40 L. Ed. 2d 164; 1974 U.S. LEXIS 128 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | 82 Wash. 2d 11, 507 P.2d 1169 (1973); cert. granted, 414 U.S. 1038 (1973). |
| Subsequent | On remand, 84 Wash. 2d 617, 529 P.2d 438 (1974). |
| Holding | |
| The Court held that the case was moot. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Per curiam | |
| Dissent | Douglas |
| Dissent | Brennan, joined by Douglas, White, Marshall |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. | |
DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312 (1974), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the case had become moot and so declined to render a decision on the merits.[1] American student Marco DeFunis, who had been denied admission to the University of Washington School of Law in the state of Washington before he was provisionally admitted during the pendency of the case, was slated to graduate within a few months of the decision being rendered.[2]
The Court rejected the assertion that the case was in one of two exceptions to the mootness doctrine that were raised by the plaintiff. The case did not constitute "voluntary cessation" on the part of the defendant law school, as the plaintiff was now in his final quarter, and the law school could take no action to deny him the ability to graduate. Also, it was not a question that was "capable of repetition, yet evading review" because the plaintiff would never again face the situation, and others who might raise the same complaint in the future might be able to receive the courts' full review.
DeFunis argued that materials brought to light during discovery and entered into evidence in the trial court showed that his initial denial of admission to the law school was the result of the operation of the law school's affirmative action policy, favoring the admission of minority applicants over better-qualified white candidates. Although the Court refused to consider the case on the merits in DeFunis, the issue of affirmative action returned to the Court without any problem of mootness, with an opinion on the merits achieved in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke.