De Funis v. Odegaard - 416 U.S. 312, 94 S. Ct.

1704 (1974)
RULE:

Federal courts are without power to decide questions that cannot affect the rights of litigants in the
case before them. The inability of the federal judiciary to review moot cases derives from the
requirement of U.S. Const. art. III under which the exercise of judicial power depends upon the
existence of a case or controversy.

FACTS:

In 1971, the petitioner Marco DeFunis, Jr., applied for admission as a first-year student at the
University of Washington Law School, a state-operated institution. The size of the incoming first-year
class was to be limited to 150 persons, and the Law School received some 1,600 applications for
these 150 places. DeFunis was eventually notified that he had been denied admission. He
commenced suit in a Washington state trial court, contending that the procedures and criteria
employed by the Law School Admissions Committee invidiously discriminated against him on account
of his race in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. DeFunis challenged the constitutionality of the
school's admissions policy whereby preferential treatment was extended to applicants from certain
minority racial groups, even though such applicants did not rate as high as other, nonminority
applicants under the school's evaluation procedures based on testing results and undergraduate
grades. The trial court granted the requested relief, and DeFunis was admitted to the Law School. On
appeal, the Supreme Court of Washington reversed the trial court's judgment, upholding the
constitutionality of the school's admissions policy but by this time DeFunis’ was in his second year at
law school. Nevertheless, upon DeFunis’ writ of certiorari, the United States Supreme Court stayed
the judgment of the Washington Supreme Court pending final disposition of the case by the United
States Supreme Court, and DeFunis remained in school, progressing into the final quarter of his last
term when the case was argued on certiorari.

ISSUE:

Was DeFunis’ case alleging discrimination in admission procedures by University of Washington Law
School rendered moot by the fact that DeFunis was in his final year of law school?

ANSWER:

Yes

CONCLUSION:

The case had been rendered moot. The Court found that the controversy between the parties had
clearly ceased to be "definite and concrete" and no longer touched the legal relations of parties
having adverse legal interests because DeFunis would have completed his law school studies at the
end of the term for which he was registered regardless of any decision the Court reached on the
merits of the litigation. The Court found that it could not, consistently with the limitations of U.S.
Const. art. III, consider the substantive constitutional issues tendered by the parties.