The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case challenging the admissions policy for magnet middle schools in Montgomery County, Maryland. Parents argue that the policy, implemented to reduce the enrollment of Asian-American students, constitutes illegal discrimination.
This case centers on whether the Constitution protects students as individuals or if their rights are contingent on the performance of racial groups. The Supreme Court's decision could potentially overturn a Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals precedent that Justice Samuel Alito previously characterized as "flagrantly wrong."
Montgomery County, a large school district near Washington D.C., operates four magnet middle schools for gifted students. In 2015, consultants were hired to examine the racial composition of these programs, which at the time had nearly 50% Asian-American enrollment. The consultants identified "significant racial and socioeconomic disparities" and recommended revising selection criteria to include "non-cognitive criteria" and "group-specific norms" to better reflect the community's demographics.
Following these recommendations, the school board introduced a new admissions process. While students must still score in the 85th percentile on a Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) test, the percentiles are "locally normed." This means students from school clusters with high Asian-American enrollment need to score in the 93rd district-wide percentile to be eligible for the magnet lottery, while students from other areas may only need the 60th percentile.
Since the implementation of this new policy in 2016, Asian-American enrollment in these magnet schools has reportedly decreased significantly. At one school, participation dropped from 58.2% to 30.3%. Pacific Legal Foundation filed a lawsuit on behalf of parents, alleging the policy was a deliberate act of discrimination to balance the schools racially.
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the parents' case, ruling that the share of Asian-American enrollment had not dropped below the share of applications, thus not warranting judicial review. Critics argue this interpretation implies that racial discrimination is permissible as long as the targeted group's performance remains high.
This is not the first time such a case has reached the appellate level. In 2024, Pacific Legal Foundation pursued a similar case concerning admissions at Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology in Virginia. The Fourth Circuit rejected parents' right to argue discrimination, and the Supreme Court declined to take that case. However, Justice Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, dissented, warning that the Fourth Circuit's reasoning was "dangerous" and "cries out for correction."