
Trump Administration Opens Investigation Into Diversity Efforts at Virginia School
The Trump administration announced on Thursday that it was investigating the admissions system at an elite public high school in Fairfax County, Va., which has been accused of discriminating against Asian American students to favor other racial groups.
The administration has repeatedly argued that the Supreme Court's ban on affirmative action in college admissions should also apply to K-12 education. But the court has never made such a statement, and it chose last year to allow the high school's admissions program to stand.
The school, Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology, is considered one of the best in the country. In 2020, the Fairfax County School Board overhauled the admissions process for Thomas Jefferson in an effort to diversify the majority-Asian student body. It did away with a high-stakes admissions exam and instituted a policy to reserve seats for top students from each area middle school. Applicants must also submit grades and essays.
Under the new admissions process, evaluators do not know the names or races of applicants. But they do consider whether candidates overcame challenges such as poverty or learning English as a second language.
The new admissions system led to a decrease in the percentage of Asian students at the school, and an increase in the percentage of Black, Hispanic and low-income students.
Asian Americans still make up the largest ethnic group at Thomas Jefferson, accounting for 60 percent of students, according to district data. Nineteen percent of all students in the district are Asian.
Asian American parents and other plaintiffs sued the school system in 2021 over the new policy, saying it discriminated against Asian students. A district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, but an appeals court ruled against them. And last year, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, allowing the new admissions program to continue.
That case was based on an equal protection claim under the Constitution. The Trump administration has based its own battle against school diversity efforts on a different law — Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prevents discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin. The administration has repeatedly argued that liberal-leaning schools and colleges have violated the rights of Asian, Jewish and white students, and has tried to withhold funding from institutions that do not comply with its agenda.
In a written statement announcing the investigation into Thomas Jefferson, Linda McMahon, the U.S. secretary of education, said the school's admissions system appeared to stand 'contrary to the law and to the fundamental principle that students should be evaluated on their merit, not the color of their skin.'
Asra Nomani, the parent of a Thomas Jefferson graduate and a member of the coalition that filed the lawsuit against the admissions system, said the federal investigation 'revives our fight for justice and restores hope to families who have long felt ignored.'
After the district eliminated the test that previously controlled admissions to Thomas Jefferson, many Asian American families in the county said they felt officials were penalizing them for encouraging their children to study for the exam.
'Our children have been vilified — called 'cheaters,' 'white-adjacent,' even 'resource hoarders' — for working hard and daring to dream,' Ms. Nomani said.
Richard Kahlenberg, a prominent liberal opponent of race-based affirmative action, said he favored systems like Thomas Jefferson's, which are race-neutral but still aim to diversify schools and equalize opportunity.
The Trump administration's investigation is 'a classic case of overreach,' he said. 'Of course a student who managed to do well despite growing up in a disadvantaged family or poor neighborhood deserves extra consideration.'
Historically, even conservative Supreme Court justices have signaled that they are comfortable with class-based diversity efforts. But at least three justices — Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch — have indicated that such programs could be understood as a sort of backdoor system of racial preference.
Conservative legal groups have continued to test various cases that could prompt the court to revisit the issue of diversity efforts in K-12 education.
The Trump administration announced its investigation into Fairfax County Public Schools days after a conservative advocacy group, Defending Education, filed a federal complaint against the district. Virginia's attorney general, Jason Miyares, a Republican, concluded his own investigation into the admissions system on Wednesday, finding that it violated Title VI by explicitly seeking to decrease Asian American enrollment while increasing enrollment of other groups.
Given the continued federal and state legal scrutiny of such practices, 'it is entirely possible that T.J. will find itself before the Supreme Court again in due time,' said Sarah Parshall Perry, the vice president of Defending Education, using a common nickname for the high school.
In a written statement, Fairfax County Public Schools said it was reviewing the new legal documents, but argued, 'This matter has already been fully litigated.'
Joshua P. Thompson, an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation, which represented the Asian American parents fighting the new admissions system, said the political landscape has changed because the Trump administration has threatened to withhold federal funding from schools.
'The question,' he said, 'is going to be if Fairfax County decides to defend their admissions changes again in federal court.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

17 minutes ago
Unsealed records in Abrego Garcia case offer few details that are new, unknown
A federal judge on Wednesday ordered the unsealing of several court documents in the lawsuit over Kilmar Abrego Garcia's deportation, rejecting the Trump administration's arguments that it would risk national security. U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis in Maryland issued her order after media organizations, including The Associated Press, argued the public has a right to access court records under the First Amendment. Filings unsealed so far offer little information that's new or unknown publicly. Xinis described one document as 'relatively boilerplate.' It was a request by the Trump administration to temporarily halt discovery, an early phase of a lawsuit where parties share evidence. 'It does not disclose any potentially privileged or otherwise sensitive information for which a compelling government interest outweighs the right to access,' Xinis wrote. Xinis noted that some documents were public before the court was asked to seal them the next day. Those filings contained a back-and-forth between Abrego Garcia's attorneys and the U.S. government over efforts to return him from El Salvador. Trump administration lawyers often objected to answering questions, arguing that they involve state secrets, sensitive diplomatic negotiations and other protected information. For example, the U.S. attorneys mentioned 'appropriate diplomatic discussions with El Salvador.' But they wrote that disclosing the details 'could negatively impact any outcome.' Xinis also ordered the partial release of a transcript from an April 30 court hearing. Some of it will be reacted to protect potentially classified information. Wednesday's ruling was unrelated to the Trump administration pending invocation of the state secrets privilege, a legal doctrine often used in military cases. The administration has argued that releasing information about the Abrego Garcia matter in open court — or even to the judge in private – could jeopardize national security. Xinis is yet to rule on the state secrets claim. Abrego Garcia's attorneys have argued that the Trump administration has done nothing to return the Maryland construction worker. They say the government is invoking the privilege to hide behind the misconduct of mistakenly deporting him and refusing to bring him back. Abrego Garcia's deportation violated a U.S. immigration judge's order in 2019 that shielded Abrego Garcia from expulsion to his native country. The immigration judge determined that Abrego Garcia faced likely persecution by a local Salvadoran gang that terrorized his family. Abrego Garcia's American wife sued over his deportation. Xinis ordered his return on April 4. The Supreme Court ruled on April 10 that the administration must work to bring him back. President Donald Trump told ABC News in late April that he could retrieve Abrego Garcia with a phone call to El Salvador's president. But Trump said he wouldn't do it because Abrego Garcia is a member of the MS-13 gang, an allegation that Abrego Garcia denies and for which he was never charged.


CNN
28 minutes ago
- CNN
Attorneys have had no contact with migrants held at military base in Djibouti, groups tell Supreme Court
A group of migrants that the Trump's administration has been holding on a military base in Djibouti have been unable to contact their attorneys, immigrant rights groups told the Supreme Court on Wednesday. The detainees, who were initially bound for South Sudan, are part of a high-profile emergency appeal pending at the Supreme Court over the administration's effort to remove migrants to places other than their homeland. Lower courts have required officials to provide those migrants additional notice and an opportunity to claim a fear of being tortured. Groups representing the migrants, including the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, said in a new brief that officials had 'set up a private interview room' on the base but that 'to date, counsel have not heard from them.' The migrants, the groups said, 'are stranded incommunicado in Djibouti, a country of which they have no knowledge, and en route to another country, South Sudan, where none have ever set foot and which remains engulfed in ongoing and intensifying armed conflict.' The Supreme Court has repeatedly sided with Trump amid a flurry of emergency cases that have reached its docket since the president returned to power. One issue on which the White House has not fared as well has been immigration, particularly in situations where due process concerns have been raised. The high court notably barred the administration last month from deporting other migrants under the 1789 Alien Enemies Act without more notice and a chance to have their cases reviewed. After a group of migrants facing deportation to countries other than their homeland sued over the administration's process, US District Judge Brian Murphy, a Joe Biden appointee, in March blocked officials from carrying out those removals without offering written notice and giving the targeted immigrants a chance to demonstrate they have a credible fear of persecution or torture in that other country. Murphy later said that the Trump administration 'unquestionably' violated his court order when it tried to transfer detainees to South Sudan. The Trump administration has argued Murphy's requirements are not included in federal law, and DHS officials have claimed they already have procedures in place to ensure that migrants are not persecuted in a third country. They have also described the migrants facing removal to South Sudan as having deep criminal records. But the attorneys representing the migrants at the Supreme Court pushed back on that assertion. The administration, they told the justices in their filing Wednesday, 'blatantly ignore the fact that many, if not the majority, of the class members in this case, including two of the named plaintiffs, have no criminal convictions whatsoever.' CNN's Priscilla Alvarez contributed to this report.


CNN
28 minutes ago
- CNN
Attorneys have had no contact with migrants held at military base in Djibouti, groups tell Supreme Court
A group of migrants that the Trump's administration has been holding on a military base in Djibouti have been unable to contact their attorneys, immigrant rights groups told the Supreme Court on Wednesday. The detainees, who were initially bound for South Sudan, are part of a high-profile emergency appeal pending at the Supreme Court over the administration's effort to remove migrants to places other than their homeland. Lower courts have required officials to provide those migrants additional notice and an opportunity to claim a fear of being tortured. Groups representing the migrants, including the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, said in a new brief that officials had 'set up a private interview room' on the base but that 'to date, counsel have not heard from them.' The migrants, the groups said, 'are stranded incommunicado in Djibouti, a country of which they have no knowledge, and en route to another country, South Sudan, where none have ever set foot and which remains engulfed in ongoing and intensifying armed conflict.' The Supreme Court has repeatedly sided with Trump amid a flurry of emergency cases that have reached its docket since the president returned to power. One issue on which the White House has not fared as well has been immigration, particularly in situations where due process concerns have been raised. The high court notably barred the administration last month from deporting other migrants under the 1789 Alien Enemies Act without more notice and a chance to have their cases reviewed. After a group of migrants facing deportation to countries other than their homeland sued over the administration's process, US District Judge Brian Murphy, a Joe Biden appointee, in March blocked officials from carrying out those removals without offering written notice and giving the targeted immigrants a chance to demonstrate they have a credible fear of persecution or torture in that other country. Murphy later said that the Trump administration 'unquestionably' violated his court order when it tried to transfer detainees to South Sudan. The Trump administration has argued Murphy's requirements are not included in federal law, and DHS officials have claimed they already have procedures in place to ensure that migrants are not persecuted in a third country. They have also described the migrants facing removal to South Sudan as having deep criminal records. But the attorneys representing the migrants at the Supreme Court pushed back on that assertion. The administration, they told the justices in their filing Wednesday, 'blatantly ignore the fact that many, if not the majority, of the class members in this case, including two of the named plaintiffs, have no criminal convictions whatsoever.' CNN's Priscilla Alvarez contributed to this report.