Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Controversial Boston School Admissions Policy

The Supreme Court declined to review a now-repealed Boston admissions policy, leading to dissent over its implications for race-based criteria in K-12 education.

The Supreme Court recently chose not to hear a case linked to a former admissions policy implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic, which aimed to improve racial and geographic diversity in three of Boston’s selective public schools.

While that policy has since been replaced, it had faced legal opposition from a group of white and Asian parents.

These parents argued that, despite its race-neutral appearance, the policy was discriminatory and violated their rights under the Equal Protection Clause.

They demanded admissions for five students who claimed they would have qualified under the previous criteria and sought damages as well.

Legal Rulings and Dissent

In this latest ruling, the Supreme Court sided with a lower court’s conclusion that the admissions policy did not infringe on the rights of the white and Asian students involved.

The case attracted significant attention as it had the potential to clarify the Court’s stance on whether its 2023 ruling regarding affirmative action in higher education could extend to K-12 educational settings.

Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas expressed their dissent, arguing that the Court missed an important opportunity to rectify what they viewed as a serious constitutional error.

They believed that race-based affirmative action should remain permissible at a time when previous rulings, such as those involving Harvard University and the University of North Carolina, had moved away from these practices.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, although supportive of the lower court’s findings, highlighted that the policy’s discontinuation influenced his decision not to take up the case.

He noted, however, that his decision should not be taken as an endorsement of the lower court’s ruling, urging future judges to remain mindful of the dissenting justices’ arguments.

Responses from Various Advocates

On the other side of the debate, organizations advocating for race-conscious admissions policies celebrated the Court’s ruling as a significant victory.

Iván Espinoza-Madrigal, the executive director of Lawyers for Civil Rights, interpreted this decision as a sign that the Court was not inclined to broaden its affirmative action ruling beyond higher education contexts.

Bethany Li, who leads The Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, emphasized the diversity within the Asian community and reiterated many individuals’ support for affirmative action.

She argued that the challenge should have been dismissed earlier, considering the admissions policy in question was no longer active.

The new system assigns scores to students based primarily on their GPA (70%) and standardized test scores (30%), with extra points awarded for factors like living in public housing or attending schools with significant economically disadvantaged populations.

Context and Continuing Challenges

Following the ruling, Boston Public Schools chose not to provide any comments.

Christopher Kieser, a senior attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation, who represented the plaintiffs, voiced his disappointment regarding the Court’s reference to the policy’s end as a reason for rejecting the case.

He maintained that the situation presented a perfect opportunity for exploring vital legal questions and addressing the specific requests made on behalf of the impacted students.

Historically, admissions for Boston Latin Academy, the John D. O’Bryant School of Mathematics and Science, and Boston Latin School were based solely on student grades and a single standardized test score—a method many critics argued was unfavorable to Black and Latino applicants.

To tackle these disparities, the Boston School Committee began revisiting the admissions criteria in 2019.

The revised policy came into effect for the 2021-22 academic year, eliminating entrance exams and emphasizing academic performance and geographic representation.

Within this framework, one-fifth of available seats were assigned to top students across Boston, while geography was factored into admission decisions for the remainder in an effort to foster greater diversity.

Supporters of the updated policy pointed to encouraging results; from the 2020-21 to the 2021-22 school year, the representation of Black students grew from 14% to 23%, and Latino representation rose from 21% to 23%.

In contrast, the number of white and Asian students admitted decreased.

However, the lower court found that the new policy did not disproportionately impact these groups, as they remained overrepresented compared to overall enrollment figures in Boston Public Schools.

In his dissent, Justice Alito challenged the reasoning behind the lower court’s decision, calling it indefensible.

This case falls within a broader context of ongoing legal challenges in the realm of school admissions.

Earlier this year, the legal team representing the Boston families sought the Supreme Court’s involvement in a similar matter concerning a magnet school in Fairfax County, Virginia, but that request was also dismissed.

The Pacific Legal Foundation is pursuing further litigation aimed at admissions policies in various locations, including Montgomery County, Maryland, and New York City, particularly addressing elite high schools that rely solely on standardized test scores, which tend to lead to demographic imbalances.

For example, last spring, only a small number of admission offers went to Black and Hispanic students at several prestigious New York City high schools.

The plaintiffs in these ongoing cases hope to establish a legal precedent that prevents the use of race-based criteria in K-12 admissions, whether the approach is direct or indirect.

Kieser expressed determination to continue advocating for these challenges, acknowledging that achieving the Supreme Court’s attention may require multiple petitions.

Source: The74million