Defunis vs Odegaard

Facts:
DeFunis, a white jewish student of Spanish-Portuguese decent, applied for
admission to the University of Washington in 1971. During the time in which the
plaintiff applied, the admission committee assigned less weight to the minority
students scores and reviewed their applications separately from those of other
applicants.
At the time when the plaintiffs application was under review, some minority
students were admitted, in which majority of them had scores which are lower that
the plaintiffs score. Initially, the plaintiff was placed on a waiting list and
subsequently notified that he was denied admission to the law school.
Consequently, the plaintiff filed a suit against the law school claiming that its
admission policy violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment.
A state trial court agreed with the plaintiff and ordered the officials of the school to
admit him. However, after the plaintiff started his studies, the Supreme Court of
Washington reversed in favor of the law school, explaining that its affirmative action
program was a constitutionally permissible admissions tool justified by several state
interests. The court found that the law schools affirmative action program served
the states interest in helping to diversify public education.
The case came before the Supreme Court of the United States for a full hearing
when DeFunis was in his final year of law school. Although the law school assured
that it would allow DeFunis to graduate regardless of the Courts decision, both
parties contended that mootness did not exist to block formal adjudication of the
matter.
Issue:
Can a case be adjudicated when subject matter jurisdiction is lacking due to
mootness, if adjudication of the suit would resolve an important social issue?

Held:
No. When a federal courts determination of a legal issue is no longer necessary to
compel the result originally sought, the case is moot and federal courts lack the
power to hear it.
The constitutional basis of the mootness doctrine is found in Article III of the
Constitution which requires the existence of a case or controversy. Thus, a real and
live controversy must exist at every stage of review.

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.
The 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 lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. That a matter deemed moot leaves an important social
issue unresolved is of no consequence.
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.