Supreme Court Takes Up New Case on Race in School Admissions

The U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 19 agreed to take up a case challenging a Maryland county’s magnet school lottery admission system. 

The Association for Education Fairness previously sued the Montgomery County Board of Education, arguing that the lottery system is designed to unfairly advantage African American and Latino students over Asian Americans. 

The plaintiffs argue that the policy violates the 14th Amendment right to equal protection, but the Supreme Court will not decide that issue in this case.

Instead, the justices will consider whether the plaintiffs should have been required to present more evidence to bring their lawsuit in the first place: A district court and the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit both ruled that the plaintiffs couldn’t prove the lottery system had a “disparate impact” on Asian American students. 

The case concerns four schools, all noted for rigorous academic standards. Two of them have advanced science and math STEM programs. Enrollment at all of the schools is competitive and highly coveted.

The school system previously used a cognitive test, combined with grades and teacher recommendations, in its admissions process. 

Over time, those metrics led to a substantial increase in Asian American students, and Montgomery County hired a consulting firm to study whether the program was still “equitable,” given the “changing demographics of the region.”  

Following a report by that consulting firm, the school system shifted the admissions process to include evaluations on “motivation and persistence,” and to compare students to peers from similar groups. 

The change led to a sharp drop in Asian American enrollment at the magnet schools; in one case, that demographic fell by half. That’s when the Association for Education Fairness filed its first lawsuit against Montgomery County. 

Then, during the COVID-19 pandemic, Montgomery County changed its policy again. This time, it shifted to a lottery system, open to any student scoring in the 85th percentile on standardized tests. 

Montgomery County, in a court filing, argued that the change was “race-neutral, race-blind,” and necessary because the pandemic prevented the in-person assessment it had been using up to that point. 

It also distanced itself from the pre-pandemic admissions process, which it says “was adopted by different officials for different reasons. And it is no longer in effect.”

The district court ruled that, since the number of Asian students who won the lottery and were admitted to the program was not lower than the proportion of those who applied, the plaintiffs could not win. It dismissed the case, and the Fourth Circuit upheld that ruling.

In 2023, the Supreme Court ruled that Harvard and the University of North Carolina’s affirmative action admission policies, which disadvantaged Asian students to produce a more culturally diverse student body, violated the U.S. Constitution.

Harvard rated prospective students in six categories: academic, extracurricular, athletic, school support, personal, and an “overall” category. When reviewing applications, faculty considered applicants’ race and sought to ensure there was no “dramatic drop-off” in minority admissions from the previous class. 

North Carolina used a similar process. But the Supreme Court ultimately ruled that this violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. 

“Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the 6–3 majority ruling.