De facto | Meaning, De Jure, & Facts (2024)

de facto, a legal concept used to refer to what happens in reality or in practice, as opposed to de jure (“from the law”), which refers to what is actually notated in legal code. For example, a de facto leader is someone who exerts authority over a country but whose legitimacy is broadly rejected, while a de jure leader has a legal right to authority whether or not that authority can be executed. These terms are often important in legal matters where the de facto practice—though widely accepted, known, and used—differs from the legal standard.

In international law, there has long been the question of de facto governments and leaders and their legitimacy to rule. The phrase de facto is often attached to leaders and governments that acquired power through illegitimate means. According to the World Bank, “a ‘de facto government’ comes into, or remains in, power by means not provided for in the country’s constitution, such as a coup d’état, revolution, usurpation, abrogation or suspension of the constitution.” If organizations, such as the World Bank, and other countries choose to conduct business with and recognize the de facto leader or government, they can help to confirm and validate that entity as legitimate. Thus the decision to recognize a de facto government or leader can be contentious, and leaders and governments of individual countries often disagree.

In terms of politics, a notable example is the de facto constitution of Hong Kong, the Basic Law, which was implemented following the 1997 handover of Hong Kong to China from Britain. The document guarantees residents certain freedoms and human rights and preserves a degree of autonomy for the special administrative region. Beijing maintains the sole authority to interpret this de facto constitution, however, and a year after mass pro-democracy protests in 2019, it imposed a national security law, which ended many of the freedoms enjoyed by the people of Hong Kong. The national security law has been widely criticized by international leaders and human rights organizations, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.

The difference between de facto and de jure can be important in cases where one group of people has been disadvantaged or disparaged and legal action depends on determining whether the treatment was conducted unofficially, in a de facto manner, or via sanctioned prejudice, de jure. In such cases, de facto practices can be harder to successfully challenge.This has been particularly true of racial desegregation in the United States. In Brown v. Board of Education (1954) the U.S. Supreme Court held that public school systems could not have separate educational facilities for white and Black students. However, in subsequent years various policies were undertaken that while not explicitly promoting segregation (de jure) still had that effect (de facto). This was the central issue of Milliken v. Bradley (1974), which involved segregated schools in Detroit and its suburbs. At the time Detroit was predominantly Black, while the surrounding suburbs were largely white. According to critics this racial disparity was achieved, in part, through unfair housing policies, such as redlining, that discriminated against Blacks. With Black students having been prevented from living in suburban school districts, the school district boundaries, it was argued, promoted segregation. A lower court agreed, and a plan was devised to bus Detroit students to the suburbs. The Supreme Court, however, overruled the proposal, declaring that there was “no showing of significant violation” by the suburban school districts. To some observers, this decision endorsed de facto segregation.

The delineation between the two terms is also at issue in the regulation of international trade. In 2000 the World Trade Organization (WTO) reviewed a complaint concerning the importation of automotive products into Canada. At issue was the country’s tax laws which granted reduced fees and duties to the United States and Mexico. Japan and the European Union questioned whether the tax disadvantaged certain imported products while privileging others. Also at issue was whether any privilege was de facto, conferred as a by-product of the law, or de jure, applied through intentionally discriminatory practice. The WTO held that there was de facto discrimination, and Canada was forced to adjust its policies on the importation of automotive products.

De facto may also be used in situations where no official law (de jure) exists. A notable example is a language widely spoken in a country and used by the government to conduct business though the country has no official language; e.g., English is the de facto official language of the United States. De facto may also refer to long-term domestic partnerships where no formal legal agreement was entered into but all the other prerequisites of marriage have been met (a “de facto marriage”).