Supreme Court Rejects Virginia Case Over Race In High School Admissions
The U.S. Supreme Court has turned down an appeal brought by a coalition of parents and students who argued that a top-tier public school in Virginia had implemented an admissions policy that unfairly targeted Asian Americans. By declining the case, the justices chose not to revisit or impose additional limitations on diversity initiatives in public education.
The group behind the appeal contended that the admissions changes at Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
The high court’s decision leaves in place a lower court's ruling against the plaintiffs. At this elite school near Washington, D.C., located in the Alexandria suburbs, Asian American students make up a significant portion of the enrollment.
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond upheld the admissions policy, although Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented, criticizing the decision as “patently incorrect” and arguing that it misrepresented what constitutes “proven intentional race discrimination.”
Last June, in a landmark 6-3 ruling, the Court’s conservative majority dismantled race-based admissions at colleges and universities, ending long-standing policies that were intended to increase the presence of black, Hispanic, and other underrepresented students on campuses.
Thomas Jefferson High School, commonly referred to as “TJ,” is a magnet institution renowned for its focus on science, technology, and mathematics. It is one of the most competitive public high schools in the country.
Karl Frisch, chair of the Fairfax County School Board, responded to the Supreme Court's decision by saying, “We have long believed that the new admissions process is constitutional and in the best interest of all our students. It guarantees that all qualified students from all neighborhoods in Fairfax County have a fair shot at attending this exceptional high school.”
Previously, the Supreme Court had declined to temporarily halt the admissions policy while the legal battle unfolded.
The Court’s 2023 affirmative action ruling overturned longstanding precedents and invalidated race-conscious admissions practices at institutions like Harvard University and the University of North Carolina.
In the Virginia case, the plaintiffs — a group of parents, students, and school staff — filed suit against the school board in 2021 with backing from the conservative Pacific Legal Foundation.
Although the revised admissions system does not explicitly reference race, the plaintiffs argued it was crafted to reduce Asian American representation. The school board, however, denied those claims.
The 2020 policy overhaul was introduced in response to concerns about a lack of socioeconomic and racial diversity at the school. Prior to the changes, most incoming students were from a handful of “feeder” middle schools located in more affluent parts of Fairfax County.
The updated criteria removed standardized test requirements and raised the minimum GPA while reserving admission slots for top students from each middle school. Additional consideration was given to students from underrepresented schools and those eligible for free meals.
As a result, the percentage of Asian American students admitted fell from 73% before the change to 54% in 2021, then rose to 60% in 2022 and 62% in 2023. At the same time, there was growth in enrollment of girls, low-income students (including many Asian Americans), and students from diverse racial backgrounds.
Joshua Thompson, an attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation, stated: “Schools should evaluate students as individuals, not groups, based on racial identity. That kind of group stereotyping is morally wrong and undermines the American promise of opportunity for all.” He criticized the Supreme Court’s rejection of the appeal as a missed chance to stop what he described as race-based discrimination in K-12 education.
Initially, U.S. District Judge Claude Hilton had ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, referencing comments from school board members concerned about the underrepresentation of black and Hispanic students.
However, the 4th Circuit reversed that decision, determining there was no evidence the board had deliberately targeted Asian American students or created a policy that disproportionately affected them.
In his dissent, Justice Alito warned that the 4th Circuit’s ruling was “a virus that may spread if not promptly eliminated,” and said it “effectively licenses official actors to discriminate against any racial group with impunity as long as that group continues to perform at a higher rate than other groups.”