DeFunis v. Odegaard
-
What was the DeFunis v. Odegaard law case?
DeFunis v. Odegaard was a legal case regarding affirmative action in higher education admissions policies. Marco DeFunis, Jr., a white Jewish student, was denied admission to the University of Washington Law School, leading him to claim that the school's policies violated the Fourteenth Amendment. The school's admission committee used a system that calculated applicantsā predicted first-year averages (PFYAs) and assigned less weight to minority studentsā PFYA scores, reviewing their applications separately. Although the committee didn't establish quotas, it sought to include what it considered to be a reasonable number of minority students among the incoming class. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the case was moot because DeFunis was close to finishing his education at the school.
1 Britannica SourceCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
Who were the main people and institutions involved in this case?
The DeFunis v. Odegaard case involved Marco DeFunis, Jr., who sued the University of Washington's law school over its affirmative action admissions policy, alleging it violated the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause. The lawsuit was against the school and its officials, including President Charles Odegaard.
DeFunis claimed that minority students with lower predicted first-year averages (PFYAs) were admitted over him. A state trial court sided with DeFunis, but the Supreme Court of Washington reversed this decision, supporting the law school's aim to achieve racial diversity and address the shortage of minority legal professionals. Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the case moot because DeFunis was close to finishing his studies by the time it was heard.
1 Britannica SourceCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
What was the main issue or disagreement in the DeFunis v. Odegaard case?
The central issue in DeFunis v. Odegaard was whether the University of Washington's law school admissions policy, which considered race as a factor, violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Marco DeFunis, Jr., a white Jewish student, argued that he was denied admission despite having higher predicted first-year average (PFYA) scores than some minority students who were admitted. He claimed the school's affirmative action policy resulted in reverse discrimination. The law school argued that its policy was justified by the state's interest in achieving racial diversity in public education and alleviating the shortage of minority attorneys.
2 Britannica SourcesCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
Why did Marco DeFunis disagree with the University of Washington Law School's admissions process?
Marco DeFunis, Jr. disagreed with the University of Washington Law School's admissions process because he believed it violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. DeFunis, a white Jewish student, claimed the school unfairly denied him admission while accepting minority students with lower predicted first-year average (PFYA) scores. He argued that the school's affirmative action program, which gave less weight to minority students' PFYA scores, was discriminatory. A state trial court initially sided with DeFunis, but the Supreme Court of Washington reversed this decision, leading to the case eventually being heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.
1 Britannica SourceCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
How did the U.S. Supreme Court respond to the arguments in this case?
In DeFunis v. Odegaard, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed a challenge to affirmative action in the University of Washington's law school admissions policy. Marco DeFunis, Jr., a white Jewish student, claimed the policy violated the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause because minority students with lower predicted first-year averages (PFYAs) were admitted over him.
Though a state trial court initially sided with DeFunis, the Washington Supreme Court reversed this decision, asserting that the school's affirmative action program served the state's interest in achieving racial diversity in public education and alleviating the shortage of minority attorneys.
However, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (5ā4) that the case was moot because DeFunis was already close to finishing his law degree.
1 Britannica SourceCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
What impact did the DeFunis v. Odegaard case have on affirmative action debates in education?
The Supreme Court's decision to sidestep the constitutional questions in DeFunis v. Odegaard (1974) by declaring the case moot, did not resolve the debates around affirmative action. The court's action occurred because Marco DeFunis Jr. was close to completing his law degree regardless of the ruling.
Justices dissenting from this decision argued that the court should have addressed the case's merits due to the importance of the issues presented. Later rulings, including the Bakke decision (1978), the Bollinger decisions (2003), and Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin (2016), did address the constitutional issues of affirmative action, and continue to shape the legal landscape.
2 Britannica SourcesCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles.
DeFunis v. Odegaard, legal case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (5ā4) in a per curiam (unsigned) opinion on April 23, 1974, that a constitutional challenge to the use of affirmative action in the admissions policy of a state-operated law school was moot because, by the time the case was argued before the court, the plaintiff had nearly completed his education at the school. DeFunis v. Odegaard was the first constitutional challenge to the use of affirmative action in higher education to be heard by the Supreme Court.
Facts of the case
The case arose when Marco DeFunis, Jr., a white Jewish student of Spanish-Portuguese descent, applied for admission to the law school of the University of Washington in 1971. Although the school received about 1,600 applications, officials chose to admit only 150 students.
During the time in which DeFunis applied to the law school, its admissions committee calculated all applicantsā predicted first-year averages (PFYAs) using their scores on the Law School Admissions Test (LSAT) as well as their junior- and senior-year grade point averages from undergraduate school. The admissions committee assigned less weight to the minority studentsā PFYA scores and reviewed their applications separately from those of other applicants. In addition, the admissions committee accepted minority students whose PFYA scores were lower than those of their white counterparts. Although the committee did not establish quotas, it sought to include what it considered to be a reasonable number of minority students among the incoming class.
" height="20" alt="HEW Logo">
While DeFunisās application was under review, 37 minority students were admitted. Of these, 36 had PFYA scores below those of DeFunis, and 30 had scores that were below a minimum threshold that officials had used to summarily reject other applicants. Of the 37, only 18 eventually enrolled in the law school. Forty-eight nonminority students who had PFYA scores below those of DeFunis were also admitted. Within that group, 23 students were veterans, and 25 were admitted presumably for other reasons, despite their low PFYA scores.
DeFunis was placed on a waiting list and subsequently notified that he had been denied admission to the law school. Consequently, he filed a lawsuit against the school, claiming that its admissions policy violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. A state trial court agreed with DeFunis and ordered school officials to admit him in the fall of 1971. However, after DeFunis started his studies, the Supreme Court of Washington reversed the trial courtās ruling, holding that the law schoolās affirmative action program was justified by several state interests, including the stateās interest in achieving racial diversity in public education. The court argued that the schoolās admissions policy would enable it to attain a racially diverse student body while also helping to alleviate the shortage of minority attorneys, prosecutors, judges, and public officials.
The Supreme Courtās ruling
DeFunis was permitted to remain in school pending the outcome of his appeal to the Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments on February 26, 1974. After oral arguments were heard, the court learned that DeFunis had registered for his final quarter of studies and that he would be permitted to graduate no matter how the Supreme Court ruled. Accordingly, five of the justices agreed that the case was moot and ordered it vacated and remanded to the Washington Supreme Court. In so ruling, the Supreme Court essentially sidestepped the merits of the case, discussing only the standards that it had applied in considering whether to accept the suit.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice William O. Douglas argued that the Supreme Court should have addressed the merits of the case in light of the importance of the equity issues that it presented. Another dissent, written by Justice William J. Brennan and joined by Justices Douglas, Byron R. White, and Thurgood Marshall, maintained that, because it was possible that DeFunis might not complete his studies, the court should have examined the issues in detail.
The trusted destination for professionals, college students, and lifelong learners.
SUBSCRIBE
In later cases, the Supreme Court did address the constitutional issues raised by affirmative action; see Bakke decision (1978), Bollinger decisions (2003), and Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin (2016).