Back
Racial Diversity in Admissions
Subject : Education Law - Admissions
Supreme Court Upholds Admissions Policy at Elite Virginia High School
WASHINGTON: The Supreme Court on Tuesday left in place the admissions policy at an elite public high school in Virginia that some parents claimed discriminates against highly qualified Asian Americans.
The Fairfax County School Board overhauled the Thomas Jefferson admissions process in 2020, scrapping a standardized test.
For the current school year, Black and Hispanic students made up 6.7% and 6%, respectively, of those offered admission, the school board said.
“We have long believed that the new admissions process is both constitutional and in the best interest of all of our students. It guarantees that all qualified students from all neighborhoods in Fairfax County have a fair shot at attending this exceptional high school,” said Karl Frisch, Fairfax County School Board chair.
In 2022, a federal judge found the school board engaged in impermissible “racial balancing” when it overhauled admissions. The appeals court reversed that ruling.
Alito wrote that the district court got it right. The appeals court essentially ruled that “intentional racial discrimination is constitutional so long as it is not too severe,” he wrote.
The parents who challenged the policy say it discriminates against Asian American applicants who would have been granted admission if academic merit were the sole criteria, and that efforts to increase Black and Hispanic representation necessarily come at the expense of Asian Americans.
“The Supreme Court missed an important opportunity to end race-based discrimination in K-12 admissions,” said Pacific Legal Foundation senior attorney Joshua Thompson, who represents the parents who challenged.
Admissions policy - Racial diversity - Affirmative action - Equal protection - Education equity
No Historic Record of Saraswati Temple Demolition, Muslim Body Tells MP High Court in Bhojshala Dispute
30 Apr 2026
No Absolute Bar on Simultaneous Parole/Furlough for Co-Accused Under Delhi Prisons Rules: Delhi High Court
30 Apr 2026
Rejection of Jurisdiction Plea under Section 16 Arbitration Act Not Challengeable under Section 34 Till Final Award: Supreme Court
30 Apr 2026
'Living Separately' Under Section 13B HMA Means Cessation Of Marital Obligations, Regardless Of Residence: Patna High Court
30 Apr 2026
Consolidated SCNs under Sections 73/74 CGST Act Permissible Across Multiple FYs: Karnataka HC
01 May 2026
Allahabad HC Stays NCLT Principal Bench Order Mandating Joint Scrutiny of Allahabad Bench Filings
01 May 2026
Bombay HC Grants Interim Protection from Arrest Despite Pending Anticipatory Bail in Lower Court Due to Accused's Marriage: Sections 351(2), 64(2)(m), 74 IPC
01 May 2026
Heavy Machinery Barred in Mining Leases Except Dredging: Uttarakhand HC Directs DM to Enforce Rule 29(17) of Minor Mineral Rules
01 May 2026
No Deemed Confirmation After Probation Without Written Order Under Model Standing Orders Clause 4A: Bombay High Court
01 May 2026
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
