Coalition for TJ v. Fairfax County School Board
Unpublished (2022)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A stay pending appeal is warranted when an appellant demonstrates a strong likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm absent the stay, and that the balance of equities and public interest favor granting the stay. In the context of an Equal Protection challenge to a facially race-neutral policy, a government entity may show irreparable harm through the significant logistical disruption and reputational damage caused by an injunction forcing the creation of a new policy on a compressed timeline.
Facts:
- Thomas Jefferson High School for Science & Technology (TJ) is a selective public high school in Fairfax County, Virginia.
- Prior to December 2020, TJ used an admissions process that included standardized tests, a minimum GPA, and an application fee.
- During the summer of 2020, data revealed that the number of Black students admitted to TJ's incoming class was too small to be reported, prompting a review of the admissions policy.
- In December 2020, the Fairfax County School Board adopted a new, race-neutral admissions policy.
- The new policy eliminated standardized tests and application fees, raised the GPA requirement, and implemented a holistic review considering GPA, essays, and 'experience factors' like socioeconomic status and attendance at an underrepresented middle school.
- The policy also reserved seats for the top 1.5% of the 8th-grade class from each public middle school in the participating districts.
- Evaluators under the new policy are not informed of an applicant's name, race, or gender.
- In the first year under the new policy, the percentage of admission offers to Asian American students fell from a historical average of over 65% to 54.36%, though this was higher than their 48.59% share of the applicant pool.
Procedural Posture:
- The Coalition for TJ sued the Fairfax County School Board in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, challenging the constitutionality of a new admissions policy under the Equal Protection Clause.
- The Coalition twice moved for a preliminary injunction, both of which the district court denied.
- After discovery, both parties moved for summary judgment.
- On February 25, 2022, the district court granted summary judgment to the Coalition for TJ, finding the policy was adopted with discriminatory intent and thus violated the Constitution.
- The district court entered a permanent injunction against the School Board, prohibiting further use of the challenged policy.
- The School Board, as defendant, filed a motion in the district court for a stay of the injunction pending appeal, which the court denied.
- The School Board, now as appellant, filed a motion for a stay pending appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is the Fairfax County School Board entitled to a stay pending appeal of the district court's injunction, which prohibits the use of its revised, facially race-neutral admissions policy for Thomas Jefferson High School for Science & Technology?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam (Order)
Yes. The Fairfax County School Board is entitled to a stay pending appeal. The Court grants the appellant's motion for a stay because it has satisfied the applicable legal requirements under Nken v. Holder, and thus may proceed with its use of the challenged admissions plan during the appeal.
Concurring - Heytens, J.
Yes. A stay is warranted because the Board has made a strong showing of likely success on the merits, and the other stay factors also weigh in its favor. The district court likely erred in its analyses of both disparate impact and discriminatory purpose. For a facially race-neutral policy, the plaintiff must prove the Board acted 'because of,' not merely 'in spite of,' adverse effects on a group, a standard not met here where the Board pursued a permissible goal of increasing diversity through race-neutral means. Furthermore, the Board would suffer irreparable harm from the massive logistical undertaking of creating a new policy under extreme time constraints, a harm that outweighs the potential injury to the Coalition and is contrary to the public interest in an orderly admissions process.
Dissenting - Rushing, J.
No. The Board has not made the necessary showing for the extraordinary relief of a stay. The Board's claimed injuries of time, energy, and administrative inconvenience do not constitute irreparable harm. In contrast, the violation of Asian American students' constitutional rights, as found by the district court, constitutes irreparable harm that occurs for every day the policy remains in effect. The Board has not shown a likelihood of success because the district court properly found, based on undisputed evidence of the Board's discussions and aims, that the policy was motivated by an unconstitutional intent to engage in racial balancing by reducing the number of 'overrepresented' Asian American students.
Analysis:
This order highlights the significant jurisprudential tension between permissible, race-neutral efforts to increase diversity and impermissible, intentionally discriminatory 'racial balancing.' The concurring opinion suggests that as long as a policy is facially neutral and aims for diversity, the foreseeable negative impact on one group does not prove discriminatory intent. The dissent argues that direct evidence of an intent to reduce one race's numbers to achieve a desired racial composition renders the facially neutral policy unconstitutional. The decision to grant the stay also demonstrates the high procedural bar for enjoining a government policy pending appeal, prioritizing administrative stability and the government's interest over constitutional harms that have not yet been finally adjudicated.
