Justices to Hear New Case on Race and School Admissions

By the Editorial Team · Tuesday, October 20, 2026

The Supreme Court will review a lawsuit challenging race-neutral admissions policies at selective public middle schools in Montgomery County, Maryland, where Asian American parents claim new criteria unfairly raise standards for their children. This case will test whether courts must dismiss intentional discrimination claims when policies do not show clear racial harm, potentially affecting how schools nationwide approach diversity without explicit race-based measures.

The Supreme Court announced on Monday that it will revisit the issue of race and school admissions, three years after it significantly limited the use of affirmative action in higher education. The case centers on admissions policies at four selective public middle schools in Montgomery County, Maryland, just outside Washington, D.C.

The dispute began after a group of parents, predominantly Asian American, sued the Montgomery County Public Schools system. They allege that new admissions criteria, introduced following the coronavirus pandemic, discriminated against Asian American students by effectively requiring them to achieve higher standards than students of other races to qualify for entry.

In 2023, the Supreme Court ruled against race-conscious admissions programs at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina, but it left unaddressed other policies aimed at diversifying schools that do not explicitly consider race. Since then, the court has declined to review challenges to similar admissions policies at other elite public schools, including cases in Virginia and at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point.

Under the Maryland program in question, the district replaced an in-person admissions exam with a lottery system intended to be race-neutral. Students become eligible for the lottery if they meet specific academic benchmarks—such as earning an A grade in certain subjects, performing above grade level in reading or math, and scoring in the top 15 percent on a standardized test adjusted for local socioeconomic factors. For example, students from high-poverty schools are compared only with peers from similar schools. School officials defended the new approach as a “race-blind lottery” designed to reduce barriers while acknowledging pandemic constraints.

The plaintiffs, a coalition named the Association for Education Fairness, argue that the policy results in Asian American students attending high-performing schools needing substantially higher test scores to qualify for the lottery compared to students of other races from lower-performing schools. However, school officials noted that in the first year after implementing the new system, Asian American student admission rates increased at two of the four magnet schools.

A lower court judge dismissed the lawsuit, finding no evidence that the policy was motivated by discriminatory intent. The judge concluded that the school district’s efforts to address economic disparities across schools were permissible and that disparities based solely on socioeconomic status do not prove racial discrimination.

The Supreme Court’s upcoming review will focus narrowly on whether courts can reject claims of intentional race discrimination if a policy does not demonstrably disproportionally harm a particular racial group, in this case, Asian American students.

The revision of admissions policies in Montgomery County was also influenced by a coalition of community organizations, including the local chapters of the N.A.A.C.P. and CASA Inc., which advocated for a more equitable admissions process. They pointed to data from 2021, the first year the lottery was in place, showing that Black students comprised 33 percent and Latino students 41 percent of those enrolled at magnet schools in the northern part of the county—figures that marked a substantial increase from previous years when Black and Latino students were rarely admitted.

The coalition praised the changes, saying the new system “opened doors for students who too often have been left out of opportunities designed to help them thrive.” The Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments for the next term, with a decision expected by late June or early July.

This article was reported by synthesizing coverage from multiple independent news outlets to present a balanced, unbiased account. Read about our editorial standards. Spotted an error? Let us know.