30. Defunis v.
Odegaard Held:
Brief Fact Summary.   The Court ordered the parties to
Marco DeFunis, Jr. applied for
admission as a first-year student at the
University of Washington Law School, a
state-operated institution. When he was
denied admission, he brought suit in a
Washington trial court claiming that the
admissions committee procedures were
racially discriminatory.
Synopsis of Rule of Law.
 In federal cases before the
Supreme Court, there must be an actual
case and controversy which exists at the
stages of appellate (having the power to
review and change the decisions of a lower
court) or certiorari (a writ of superior court
to call up to the records of an inferior court
or a body acting in a quasi-judicial
capacity) review, and not simply at the
date the action is initiated.
Facts:
Marco DeFunis, Jr. sued the
University of Washington Law School, a
state operated university. DeFunis argued
that the University’s admissions policies
and criteria were racially discriminatory.
However, DeFunis was allowed to attend
the law school during the case and was in
his third year when the case was heard by
the Court. Further, the University has
agreed to let him graduate upon
completion of his last year.
Issue:
 Does an actual controversy exist
between the parties, capable of redress (to
set right) by the United States Supreme
Court (Supreme Court)?
address the issue of mootness before they
proceeded to any other claims in the
petition. The Court reasoned that “federal
courts are without power to decide
questions that cannot affect the rights of
litigants (both parties) in the cases before
them.” This requirement stems from
Article III of the Constitution, under which
the exercise of judicial power depends
upon the existence of a case or
controversy. No amount of public interest
would be sufficient to create an actual case
or controversy, and the case was rendered
moot because DeFunis was going to
graduate from the law school regardless of
the Court’s ruling. Thus, the case was
rendered moot. “[T]he controversy
between the parties has thus clearly ceased
to be definite and concrete.”
Dissent (to publicly disagree with
an official opinion, decision, or set of
beliefs). There were numerous potential
litigants who would be affected by a
decision on the legal issues presented.
Further, 26 amici curiae briefs were filed
by parties in this case. The public interest
would be best served by reviewing these
issues now, as they would inevitably find
their way back into the federal court
system. There was a stronger interest in
litigating these issues immediately to avoid
repetitious litigation that would inevitably
occur due to the high public interest in this
issue.
Discussion
  A case is considered “moot” if a
justiciable controversy existed when a case
was filed, but circumstances after filing
indicate the litigant no longer has a stake in
the controversy. In such a situation, the
Supreme Court’s jurisdiction is not
invoked, and the Court will not even hear
the other issues presented.