Coalition for TJ v. Fairfax County School Board, 1:21-cv-00296

Plaintiff Coalition for TJ (parents and supporters) sued Fairfax County School Board after the Board overhauled 2020 TJ admissions: eliminated standardized tests, raised GPA/honors course requirements, adopted holistic review with "Experience Factors," and guaranteed seats equal to 1.5% of each middle school's 8th-grade class.
Pre-change admitted classes were heavily Asian-American (e.g., Class of 2024 ≈73%); after the change (Class of 2025) Asian-American admits fell to ~54% (299 offers vs. 355–367 in prior years).
Board and FCPS officials (emails, meetings, white papers) discussed altering TJ's racial composition, cited George Floyd protests and a Virginia reporting deadline on diversity as prompting rapid action.
The Coalition pursued summary judgment; the court found no material factual disputes and considered associational standing, discriminatory intent under Arlington Heights, and application of strict scrutiny.
Court concluded the Board acted at least in part for a racial purpose, applied strict scrutiny, found no compelling interest or narrow tailoring (racial balancing and K–12 "diversity" rationale insufficient), and entered summary judgment for the Coalition, invalidating the policy.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Associational standing	Coalition members (parents/students) have standing; organization meets Hunt factors	Board challenged standing implicitly; primarily contested merits	Coalition has associational standing; Hunt factors satisfied
Discriminatory intent / strict scrutiny trigger	Board acted at least in part to change TJ's racial makeup; statements and sequence show racial purpose; policy had disparate impact on Asian-Americans	Policy is facially race-neutral, aimed at increasing access/diversity and complying with state reporting	Applying Arlington Heights, court found discriminatory intent; strict scrutiny applies
Compelling interest / narrow tailoring	Board pursued racial balancing (not compelling); alternatives existed and overhaul was not last resort	Board claimed interest in diversity and increasing access for underrepresented students and complying with state guidance	Racial balancing is not a compelling interest in K–12; even asserted interests were not narrowly tailored
Remedy	Injunctive relief / invalidation of policy	Defend and uphold new admissions system	Court granted summary judgment to Coalition and invalidated the admissions policy; Board's motion denied

Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (1977) (framework for proving discriminatory intent using circumstantial and direct evidence)
Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (1995) (strict scrutiny applies to facially neutral actions motivated by race)
Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200 (1995) (burden on government to prove narrow tailoring under strict scrutiny)
Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, 570 U.S. 297 (2013) (narrow tailoring and exacting review for race-conscious admissions; limits on acceptable justifications)
Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (2007) (rejects extending higher-education diversity rationale to K–12 racial assignments)
Pers. Adm'r of Mass. v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256 (1979) (disparate impact can support inference of discriminatory purpose when policy was pursued because of its adverse effects on a group)
Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Comm'n, 432 U.S. 333 (1977) (associational standing test)
N.C. State Conference of NAACP v. McCrory, 831 F.3d 204 (4th Cir. 2016) (applying Arlington Heights in voting/administrative contexts; disparate impact evidence supports intent inference)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (standards for summary judgment)