US Supreme Court to Review Challenge Over Race‑Based Admissions at Maryland Magnet Schools

The nation’s highest court has agreed to consider a lawsuit that argues a Montgomery County, Maryland, school admissions policy discriminates against Asian‑American students in favor of Black and Latino applicants. The case involves four selective magnet middle schools on the Washington, D.C.,‑adjacent county’s outskirts.

The Supreme Court said it will examine whether the parent‑led group, the Association for Education Fairness, has presented sufficient proof of discrimination to move forward. Lower courts had dismissed the suit, noting that Asian‑American applicants were not underrepresented relative to the overall pool of candidates for the specialized‑curriculum schools. If the justices side with the parents, the lawsuit could be revived. Arguments are slated for the coming months, with a decision expected by June.

Montgomery County introduced the contested admissions system for the 2021‑2022 school year, during the COVID‑19 pandemic. The process first evaluates every student’s academic potential, then uses a lottery to randomly place eligible students in either a magnet program or a neighborhood school. Plaintiffs claim the screening step disadvantages Asian‑American children, who they say tend to attend high‑performing, low‑poverty elementary schools, making it harder for them to reach the lottery pool. Part of the evaluation compares a student’s test scores with those of peers whose families earn similar incomes.

In their petition to the Supreme Court, the parents wrote, “Under the applicant pool benchmark, the government can set specific racial targets, hit them, and avoid even an inquiry into discriminatory intent,” arguing that the policy masks race‑based goals.

A federal judge dismissed the case in 2022. Judge Paula Xinis found that Asian‑American enrollment at the magnet schools actually exceeded the share of Asian‑American applicants, and she saw no evidence that the lottery was implemented with discriminatory intent.

The school district maintains that the “Pandemic Plan,” as it is called, is race‑neutral. In a brief urging the Court to decline the case, the district’s lawyers stated, “The Pandemic Plan is a colorblind lottery. Nothing about the Pandemic Plan, its history, or its purpose is offensive to the Constitution.”

The justices will now decide whether plaintiffs must demonstrate that a supposedly race‑neutral policy caused disproportionate harm in order to prove intentional discrimination.