The justices will hear oral argument early next year in Association for Education Fairness v. Montgomery County Board of Education, a suit contesting how a Maryland county decides who gets into a group of highly selective public magnet schools. The plaintiffs, a coalition of mostly Asian-American parents, contend that while the policy lacks a racial focus on its surface, it was crafted to cut down Asian-American enrollment.
The decision appeared on the justices’ Oct. 16 conference agenda and marks the second time in two years the court has agreed to hear similar challenges, one involving northern Virginia’s Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology, considered among the nation’s top high schools, and another concerning three of Boston’s elite public high schools.
Origins of the Challenge
The case traces back to 2020, when the Association for Education Fairness — describing itself as a group of concerned Asian-American parents in Montgomery County — filed suit over changes to admissions at four highly selective magnet middle schools. The original policy aimed to increase enrollment among Black and Hispanic students by screening all fifth graders rather than only those nominated by parents, eliminating teacher recommendations, and comparing applicants against peers at their own schools. The county, located just outside Washington, D.C., implemented these changes as part of broader efforts to promote diversity within its magnet programs.
In 2021-22, the county introduced a revised approach that placed all fifth graders meeting certain criteria, grades, reading level, and standardized test scores, into a single pool for selection by lottery. The parent group amended its complaint to argue that this so-called Pandemic Plan intentionally discriminated against Asian-American students. Court records indicate that the plan was adopted during the pandemic and applied across multiple magnet schools within the district.
Related Post: Supreme Court Sets New Second Amendment Evaluation Test
Lower Court Rulings
U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis granted the school board’s motion to dismiss, noting that both parties agreed the plan was a neutral process applied evenly. She found that the plaintiffs did not meaningfully dispute the policy’s rational connection to legitimate educational goals and dismissed the case because the complaint failed to plausibly show either a disparate impact on Asian-American students or discriminatory intent. Xinis emphasized that the parent group had not contested the board’s argument that the plan was rationally related to its stated objectives.
Xinis pointed out that the percentage of admitted Asian-American students far exceeded their share of the applicant pool, making it difficult to see how the policy imposed a disproportionate burden. The Fourth Circuit upheld her decision in a brief February opinion, leading the parent group to petition the Supreme Court. The appellate court affirmed that the district court had correctly applied the relevant legal standards and found no basis to overturn the dismissal.
Arguments Before the Court
The parent group argues that lower courts are divided over whether plaintiffs alleging intentional racial discrimination under the Constitution must also show disparate impact. They cite the court’s 2023 ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, where the majority declared that eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it. The parent group further argues that the Supreme Court’s recent guidance in affirmative action cases cannot stand if it requires eliminating all racial discrimination.
Question Presented
The justices agreed to hear the case based on a single question: whether a plaintiff challenging a facially neutral admissions policy as racially discriminatory must establish that the affected racial group suffered a disparate impact relative to its share of the applicant pool. The outcome could clarify how courts evaluate race-conscious admissions policies in public education.
