Coalition for TJ v. Fairfax County School Board

Last updated

Coalition for TJ v. Fairfax County School Board
Seal of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.svg
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Full case nameCoalition for TJ v. Fairfax County School Board
ArguedSeptember 16, 2022
DecidedMay 23, 2023
Case history
Appealed from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Robert Bruce King, Allison Jones Rushing, Toby J. Heytens
Case opinions
Decision byKing
ConcurrenceHeytens
DissentRushing

Coalition for TJ v. Fairfax County School Board is a United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit case about the changes to Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology's admissions policy which were made in 2020. The Coalition for TJ, a local single-issue advocacy group, alleged that the changes that Fairfax County Public Schools made to the school's admission policy unfairly discriminate against Asian Americans. After the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled in favor of the Coalition for TJ in February 2022, FCPS appealed the ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which reversed the district court in May 2023.

Contents

On August 21, 2023, the Coalition petitioned the Supreme Court to hear its case. [1] On February 20, 2024, the Court declined to hear the case by denying certiorari.

Background

Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology (TJ) is a prestigious public magnet school that serves part of Northern Virginia. Students are admitted during eighth grade, for entrance the following year, to a class of around 500 students. Prior to 2020, admissions were principally conducted through applicants taking a standardized test, submitting letters of recommendation, and writing essays. In the fall of 2020, the Fairfax County School Board revised the admissions process, dropping the standardized test, removing the $100 application fee, and allocating a small number of seats in the incoming class of 2025 to each public middle school in the region, while evaluating students on their grades, essays, and "experience factors, including students who are economically disadvantaged, English language learners, special education students, or students who are currently attending underrepresented middle schools." Admissions for the class of 2025 saw Asian-American applicants receive 54% of the admissions offers, a decline from 73% for the class of 2024 (which was conducted under the previous policy). [2] The shares of white, black, and Hispanic students admitted increased.

The Coalition for TJ, a local single-issue advocacy group [ [3] ], opposed the changes to the admissions policy, asserting they would have a disparate impact on Asian applicants and the policy change was intended to racially balance the student body by reducing the number of Asian students (citing the public statements made by the Fairfax County School Board members). It is represented by the Pacific Legal Foundation.

Racial Composition of Admitted TJHSST Classes (Percent)
2020 (Before Reform) [4] 2021 (After Reform) [5]
Asian73.054.36
White17.722.36
Black≤2.1 [lower-alpha 1] 7.09
Hispanic3.311.27
Multiracial/Other6.04.91

Lower court proceedings

District court

On March 10, 2021, the Coalition filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, challenging the admissions policy as enacted with discriminatory intent against applicants of Asian descent, under Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. The case was assigned to Judge Claude M. Hilton. The Coalition twice sought preliminary injunctions blocking use of the 2020 admissions policy; Hilton denied them on May 26, 2021, and September 20, 2021. A bench trial was scheduled to begin January 24, 2022; Hilton canceled it on January 18, after the parties agreed there was no genuine dispute as to any material fact. [6]

On February 25, 2022, Hilton granted the Coalition's motion for summary judgment and permanently enjoined enforcement of the 2020 admissions policy. In the opinion, he wrote the policy was "[a] means to accomplish [the Board's] goal of achieving racial balance, was to decrease enrollment of the only racial group 'overrepresented' at T.J.—Asian Americans. The board employed proxies that disproportionately burden Asian American students." [7]

On March 4, 2022, the School Board sought a stay of the injunction pending appeal. Hilton denied it on March 11. [6]

Court of appeals

On March 14, 2022, the Fairfax County School Board appealed the district court's permanent injunction against the 2020 admissions policy to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Former Solicitor General of the United States Donald B. Verrilli Jr. represents the board pro bono. The board sought to stay the decision pending resolution of the appeal. On March 31, 2022, the Fourth Circuit granted the stay in a 2–1 order. The majority was unreasoned; Judges Robert Bruce King and Toby Heytens joined it; Heytens also wrote a separate concurrence outlining his disagreement with Hilton's reasoning. Judge Allison Jones Rushing dissented. [8]

On April 8, 2022, the Coalition filed an emergency application in the Supreme Court of the United States to have the Fourth Circuit's stay vacated. Virginia and 15 other states filed an amicus curiae brief supporting the request. On April 25, 2022, the application was denied over the dissents of Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch. [9] The case was heard in the court of appeals on September 16, 2022, and decided on May 23, 2023. [10] The Fourth Circuit, by a 2 to 1 vote, reversed the district court and restored the new admission plan.

Supreme Court

On August 21, 2023, the Coalition petitioned the Supreme Court to hear its case. [1] On February 20, 2024, the Court declined to hear the case by denying certiorari. Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joined, wrote a dissent from the denial of certiorari.

Notes

    1. In 2020, the number of black students admitted was 10 or fewer. FCPS did not report the exact number in order to protect student privacy. Since 486 students were admitted, this means the percentage of those students who were black was at most 2.1%.

    Related Research Articles

    Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), was a landmark case of the Supreme Court of the United States concerning affirmative action in student admissions. The Court held that a student admissions process that favors "underrepresented minority groups" did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause so long as it took into account other factors evaluated on an individual basis for every applicant. The decision largely upheld the Court's decision in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), which allowed race to be a consideration in admissions policy but held racial quotas to be unconstitutional. In Gratz v. Bollinger (2003), a separate case decided on the same day as Grutter, the Court struck down a points-based admissions system that awarded an automatic bonus to the admissions scores of minority applicants.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Admission to the bar in the United States</span> Registration to practice law in a US jurisdiction

    Admission to the bar in the United States is the granting of permission by a particular court system to a lawyer to practice law in the jurisdiction. Each U.S. state and jurisdiction has its own court system and sets its own rules and standards for bar admission. In most cases, a person is admitted or called to the bar of the highest court in the jurisdiction and is thereby authorized to practice law in the jurisdiction. Federal courts, although often overlapping in admission standards with states, set their own requirements.

    Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the University of Michigan undergraduate affirmative action admissions policy. In a 6–3 decision announced on June 23, 2003, Chief Justice Rehnquist, writing for the Court, ruled the University's point system's "predetermined point allocations" that awarded 20 points towards admission to underrepresented minorities "ensures that the diversity contributions of applicants cannot be individually assessed" and was therefore unconstitutional.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology</span> Magnet high school in Alexandria, Virginia, United States

    Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology is a Virginia state-chartered magnet high school in Fairfax County, Virginia operated by Fairfax County Public Schools. The school occupies the building of the previous Thomas Jefferson High School. A selective admissions program was initiated in 1985 through the cooperation of state and county governments, as well as corporate sponsorship from the defense and technology industries. It is one of 18 Virginia Governor's Schools, and a founding member of the National Consortium for Specialized Secondary Schools of Mathematics, Science and Technology.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund</span> Organization in New York, United States

    The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. is an American civil rights organization and law firm based in New York City.

    Bob Jones University v. United States, 461 U.S. 574 (1983), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that the religion clauses of the First Amendment did not prohibit the Internal Revenue Service from revoking the tax exempt status of a religious university whose practices are contrary to a compelling government public policy, such as eradicating racial discrimination.

    DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312 (1974), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the case had become moot and so declined to render a decision on the merits. American student Marco DeFunis, who had been denied admission to the University of Washington School of Law in the state of Washington before he was provisionally admitted during the pendency of the case, was slated to graduate within a few months of the decision being rendered.

    <i>Hopwood v. Texas</i> 1996 U.S. court case

    Hopwood v. Texas, 78 F.3d 932, was the first successful legal challenge to a university's affirmative action policy in student admissions since Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. In Hopwood, four white plaintiffs who had been rejected from University of Texas at Austin's School of Law challenged the institution's admissions policy on equal protection grounds and prevailed. After seven years as a precedent in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the Hopwood decision was abrogated by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2003.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Barbara Milano Keenan</span> Austrian-American judge (born 1950)

    Barbara Louise Milano Keenan is a senior United States circuit judge of United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and a former justice on the Supreme Court of Virginia.

    Robert George Doumar was a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">American Foundation for Equal Rights</span> American nonprofit organization

    The American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER) was a nonprofit organization active in the United States from 2009 through 2015. The organization was established to support the plaintiffs in Hollingsworth v. Perry, a federal lawsuit challenging California's Proposition 8 under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. AFER retained former United States Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson and David Boies to lead the legal team representing the plaintiffs challenging Proposition 8.

    Fisher v. University of Texas, 570 U.S. 297 (2013), also known as Fisher I, is a United States Supreme Court case concerning the affirmative action admissions policy of the University of Texas at Austin. The Supreme Court voided the lower appellate court's ruling in favor of the university and remanded the case, holding that the lower court had not applied the standard of strict scrutiny, articulated in Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) and Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), to its admissions program. The Court's ruling in Fisher took Grutter and Bakke as given and did not directly revisit the constitutionality of using race as a factor in college admissions.

    <i>Woollard v. Gallagher</i> Civil lawsuit

    Woollard v. Sheridan, 863 F. Supp. 2d 462, reversed sub. nom., Woollard v Gallagher, 712 F.3d 865, was a civil lawsuit brought on behalf of Raymond Woollard, a resident of the State of Maryland, by the Second Amendment Foundation against Terrence Sheridan, Secretary of the Maryland State Police, and members of the Maryland Handgun Permit Review Board. Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants' refusal to grant a concealed carry permit renewal to Mr. Woollard on the basis that he "...ha[d] not demonstrated a good and substantial reason to wear, carry or transport a handgun as a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger in the State of Maryland" was a violation of Mr. Woollard's rights under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments, and therefore unconstitutional. The trial court found in favor of Mr. Woollard, However, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review that decision.

    Kachalsky v. Cacace is a case regarding the constitutionality of "may-issue" concealed carry laws. The plaintiffs, Alan Kachalsky, Christina Nikolov, and the Second Amendment Foundation, represented by Alan Gura, originally sought an injunction barring Susan Cacace, handgun licensing authority for co-Defendant Westchester County, New York, from enforcing a requirement of New York State law that applicants for handgun carry permits demonstrate "proper cause" for the issuance of a handgun license and subsequent carry of a handgun in public.

    <i>Peruta v. San Diego County</i>

    Peruta v. San Diego, 824 F.3d 919, was a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit pertaining to the legality of San Diego County's restrictive policy regarding requiring documentation of "good cause" that "distinguish[es] the applicant from the mainstream and places the applicant in harm's way" before issuing a concealed carry permit.

    Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, 600 U.S. 181 (2023), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the court held that race-based affirmative action programs in college admissions processes violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. With its companion case, Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina, the Supreme Court effectively overruled Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) and Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), which validated some affirmative action in college admissions provided that race had a limited role in decisions.

    Fisher v. University of Texas, 579 U.S. 365 (2016), also known as Fisher II, is a United States Supreme Court case which held that the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit correctly found that the University of Texas at Austin's undergraduate admissions policy survived strict scrutiny, in accordance with Fisher v. University of Texas (2013), which ruled that strict scrutiny should be applied to determine the constitutionality of the University's race-conscious admissions policy.

    <i>G.G. v. Gloucester County School Board</i> U.S. court case dealing with transgender rights

    G.G. v. Gloucester County School Board was a court case dealing with transgender rights in the United States. The case involved a transgender boy attending a Virginia high school, who sued the local school board after he was forced to use girls' restrooms based on his assigned gender under the school board's policy. While the Fourth Circuit ruled in favor of the student based on Obama administration policy related to Title IX protections, the election of Donald Trump changed the underlying policy. A pending hearing before the Supreme Court of the United States was vacated and the case was sent back to the Fourth Circuit.

    Biden v. Texas, 597 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to administrative law and immigration.

    United States v. Texas, 599 U.S. 670 (2023), was a United States Supreme Court case related to federal immigration law.

    References

    1. 1 2 "Docket for 23-170" . Retrieved August 25, 2023.
    2. Saul, Stephanie (February 16, 2022). "Conservatives Open New Front in Elite School Admission Wars". The New York Times . Retrieved June 21, 2022.
    3. https://coalitionfortj.net
    4. "TJHSST Offers Admission to 486 Students | Fairfax County Public Schools". June 1, 2020. Archived from the original on August 24, 2022.
    5. "TJHSST Offers Admission to 550 Students; Broadens Access to Students Who Have an Aptitude for STEM | Fairfax County Public Schools". June 23, 2021. Archived from the original on August 24, 2022. Retrieved May 27, 2023.
    6. 1 2 "Coalition for TJ v. Fairfax County School Board (1:21-cv-00296)". CourtListener . Free Law Project. March 10, 2021. Retrieved June 21, 2022.
    7. Robertson, Campbell; Saul, Stephanie (February 25, 2022). "Judge Strikes Down Elite Virginia High School's Admissions Rules". The New York Times . Retrieved June 21, 2022.
    8. Natanson, Hannah (March 31, 2022). "Court says Thomas Jefferson admissions can remain as case proceeds". The Washington Post . Retrieved June 21, 2022.
    9. Liptak, Adam (April 25, 2022). "Supreme Court Allows Elite High School's New Admissions Rules". The New York Times . Retrieved June 21, 2022.
    10. "Coalition for TJ v. Fairfax County School Board" (PDF). Retrieved May 24, 2023.