Supreme Court declines challenge to Thomas Jefferson race policy that cut Asian American admissions

The Supreme Court said Tuesday that it will not hear a case challenging the admissions policy at Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology in Northern Virginia, leaving in place a system that had cut Asian American enrollment.

Analysts saw the case as the next frontier in affirmative action. Last year, the justices struck down university policies that gave “plus” factors to some minority students.

Thomas Jefferson’s approach relies on geography to allocate spaces at the highly selective school in Fairfax County, figuring that would expand chances for Black and Hispanic applicants. Opponents said it discriminated against Asian Americans.

The justices declined the case without giving a reason, as is their usual practice.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, wrote a forceful dissent chiding colleagues for failing to overturn “a patently incorrect” lower-court decision that favored Thomas Jefferson’s policy.

“The Court’s willingness to swallow the aberrant decision below is hard to understand. We should wipe the decision off the books,” Justice Alito wrote.

Thomas Jefferson updated its policy in 2020 amid the racial justice fervor that swept the country after George Floyd died in Minneapolis police custody.

Worried about the high share of Asian American students — 73% in the class that entered in 2020 — the school’s principal demanded action. The Fairfax County School Board, which oversees Thomas Jefferson, rewrote its policy.

The school tossed its reliance on a standardized admissions test. Instead, it said it would allocate most seats by dividing them among the middle schools, effectively reserving some slots for schools that hadn’t previously sent many students to Thomas Jefferson.

Some Asian American parents planned much of their lives around the chance to get their children into Thomas Jefferson. They moved to areas where middle schools sent more students to the selective high school.

The geography-based policy did boost White, Black and Hispanic enrollment while slashing the share of Asian American students. Offers of admission went from as much as 75% of Asian Americans to just 54%, Justice Alito said.

A group called Coalition for TJ sued to stop the policy and won in federal district court. A judge ruled that the school board’s moves were intended to discriminate and violated the Constitution’s equal protection clause.

The judge cited board member communications suggesting interest in cutting Asian American enrollment and said the numbers showed the policy achieved that goal.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that ruling in a 2-1 decision, saying that using geography was a race-neutral approach. The majority said Asian Americans still filled most of the school’s seats and represented a significantly higher ethnic rate than the county’s overall population.

Justice Alito called the standard bizarre. He said it allowed the government to “discriminate against any racial group with impunity as long as that group continues to perform at a higher rate than other groups.”

He said he didn’t conclude whether the district judge made the right decision but insisted the appeals court’s “indefensible” ruling had to be reversed.

Justice Alito said the new standard could become a “blueprint” for universities and other public school systems looking for affirmative action policies that could survive court review.

Schools are seeking ways to circumvent the Supreme Court’s ruling in June on two cases involving Harvard University and the University of North Carolina.

Both schools looked more favorably on applications from some applicants who were Black, Hispanic or American Indian than White or Asian American applicants. The schools defended their affirmative action policy as an essential tool for diversity, which they said was part of their educational mission.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., leading the six-justice majority on the court, said judging an applicant based on membership in a racial or ethnic group was detrimental to the Constitution.

Thomas Jefferson’s victory Tuesday suggests room for schools to continue considering race as long as the approach is not categorical.

Karl Frisch, chairman of the Fairfax County School Board, hailed the ruling.

“We have long believed that the new admissions process is both constitutional and in the best interest of all of our students,” he said. “It guarantees that all qualified students from all neighborhoods in Fairfax County have a fair shot at attending this exceptional high school.”

He said those accepted to the school under the current policy have 3.9 grade-point averages, “consistent with historical averages.”

Fairfax County said that for the current school year, 61.6% of Thomas Jefferson admission offers went to Asian American students, 19% to White students, 6.7% to Black students and 6% to Hispanic students.

Coalition for TJ co-founder Asra Nomani called the ruling “a setback but not a death blow.”

Joshua Thompson, a Pacific Legal Foundation lawyer representing the coalition, said the high court missed an opportunity.

“Schools should evaluate students as individuals, not as groups based on racial identity,” he said. “That kind of group stereotyping is morally wrong and undermines the American promise of opportunity for all.”

The case is Coalition for TJ v. Fairfax County School Board.

Correction: This article has been updated to correct the year the Supreme Court issued its rulings on race-based admissions policies at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina.