Plaintiffs in Maryland case stress equal opportunities for all

The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case on a limited question: Whether a plaintiff challenging a facially neutral admissions policy as racially discriminatory must establish that the targeted racial group suffered an aggregate disparate impact relative to its share of the applicant pool.

The case centers on changes the school district made to admissions criteria beginning in 2016. The plaintiffs argue that the district moved away from traditional admissions testing toward policies that grouped students by the socioeconomic characteristics of their elementary schools and compared test scores within those groups. 

The plaintiffs allege that changes intended in part to increase Black and Hispanic enrollment disadvantaged Asian American students and violated their constitutional rights.

Chris Kieser, a senior attorney at Pacific Legal Foundation representing the plaintiffs, said those policies disproportionately disadvantaged Asian American students while advancing the district's efforts to change the racial makeup of its magnet programs.

 “The equal protection clause is an individual right. It's not a group right,” Kieser told The Center Square.  

In 2020, the district replaced the previous admissions system with a weighted lottery. Students had to meet academic thresholds based on locally normed test scores to qualify for the lottery. 

The plaintiffs argue that the changes continued to disadvantage Asian American students, who they say were disproportionately concentrated in certain school groups.

"Under the applicant pool benchmark, the government can set specific racial targets, hit them, and avoid even an inquiry into discriminatory intent so long as it employs a facially-neutral proxy instead of an explicit racial classification," the brief to the Supreme Court stated. 

The school district has maintained that its admissions criteria are race-neutral.

“Montgomery County Public Schools remains committed to providing equitable access to rigorous opportunities for all students,” Liliana López, the district's director of communications, told The Center Square. “This commitment will continue uninterrupted as the judicial process proceeds.” 

Kieser said a favorable ruling could have implications beyond Montgomery County by allowing similar lawsuits to proceed to consideration of evidence of discriminatory intent.

The case has taken years to reach the high court, and Kieser said some families involved in the lawsuit understood that the litigation might not conclude before their children finished middle school.

“A lot of the members knew that when they signed up with the group that this case could take a long time, and that it might not benefit their kids because they might be out of middle school by the time the case is over, but they're dedicated to making it better for everyone,” Kieser said.

A ruling for the plaintiffs would not automatically invalidate the district's admissions policies. The case would return to the lower courts for further proceedings on whether the plaintiffs adequately alleged discriminatory intent.

The Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision in 2027.