Parents challenge Boston’s tier-based school admissions as unconstitutional
This week, PLF brought its challenge to a Boston public school’s admissions system before the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. PLF senior attorney Chris Kieser delivered oral arguments, advocating on behalf of parents who argue the admissions process is discriminatory.
The case, brought by the Boston Parent Coalition for Academic Excellence and supported by PLF, argues that Boston’s tier-based admissions policy violates the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause by intentionally disadvantaging students based on race, using geography and socioeconomic “tiers” as a proxy.
For generations, Boston Latin School, one of three prestigious “exam schools” operated by Boston Public Schools, admitted students based on merit, relying on grades and standardized test scores. That changed in 2020, when the district abandoned merit-based admissions in favor of systems designed to engineer the racial makeup of admitted classes using a ZIP code quota plan.
The policy was challenged in court, but the lawsuit was dismissed on the grounds that the Coalition failed to prove the policy’s disparate impact on white and Asian students. The Supreme Court also declined to review the case, but not without a scorching dissent from Justice Samuel Alito, who called the dismissal a “glaring constitutional error.”
In the hopes of avoiding another legal challenge, Boston replaced the ZIP code quota plan with the current tier system, which divides Boston into socioeconomic tiers and allots each tier the same number of seats.
The policy funnels most white students into the most competitive tiers, where applicants face significantly higher cutoff scores and lower acceptance rates than students in other tiers. As a result, white students were admitted at rates below their share of the applicant pool for the first three years—exactly what the court said was necessary to prove disparate impact.
Boston parents are back in federal court, bolstered by new evidence of disparate impact and growing indications that Supreme Court justices are prepared to confront government-sponsored discrimination by proxy.
At oral argument, the court considered whether the parents’ claims may proceed.
“The court today focused on the proper standard to show disparate impact in an intentional discrimination claim,” said PLF attorney Chris Kieser. “The judge understood our argument that comparison should not be to the school-age population of Boston Public Schools. He pledged to issue an opinion on the question next week.”
The case raises broader questions about whether public schools may pursue racial balancing through indirect means—and whether competitive admissions programs can lawfully impose unequal standards on students based on where they live.
