By Patrick Cremin
Staff Attorney, Education Law Center
This article assesses the shifting legal landscape since the decision in Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. Harvard, which struck down affirmative action in college admissions, and discusses the implications for K-12 education generally and magnet schools specifically as a potential tool for remedying school segregation.
Recent Legal DevelopmentsIn 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in SFFA v. Harvard that the race-conscious admissions programs of two universities violated the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution, effectively ending the use of affirmative action in college admissions. However, this decision did not address K-12 admissions policies, raising new questions about K-12 programs attempting to diversify student participation in selective activities, such as magnet schools and gifted classes, and addressing inequitable disciplinary, grading, and other practices. Although the constitutionality of these practices was not impacted by the SFFA ruling, K-12 efforts to promote diversity and equity may face heightened scrutiny in light of the ruling and recent political pressures against diversity, equity, and inclusion programs.
Even so, pathways to school desegregation have not been foreclosed by the courts, and new potential avenues have arisen to ensure that states comply with legal mandates to maintain integrated schools.
The SFFA v. Harvard ruling does not impede the ability of K-12 schools to foster racial or socioeconomic diversity under existing legal precedent. In Parents Involved v. Seattle (2007), the Supreme Court held that certain student assignment plans designed to increase racial diversity within K-12 schools were unconstitutional. But this holding did not prohibit all consideration of race to change the racial composition of schools. Justice Kennedy, in a concurring opinion, suggested particular strategies for fostering racial integration without resorting to individual racial classifications of students. For example, schools can be sited strategically to improve the racial composition of the student body; draw attendance zones while considering the racial demographics of the neighborhoods; recruit students and faculty in a targeted fashion; allocate resources for special programs; and track enrollments, performance, and other statistics by race.
Some magnet schools have also adopted race-neutral admissions policies that may impact student diversity but remain legally permissible. For example, in Coalition for TJ v. Fairfax County School Board (2024), the Fourth Circuit upheld the admissions policy of a public magnet high school in Virginia that relied on a “holistic” selection process that considered factors such as family income and English learner status, in addition to academic performance. Just months after its ruling in SFFA v. Harvard, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review this case, meaning that the Fourth Circuit ruling remains binding in that jurisdiction. Despite the Supreme Court’s decision to let the Fourth Circuit’s ruling stand, in May 2025, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights launched an investigation into Fairfax County Public Schools (where the high school is located) alleging that the district is in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits racial discrimination in federally funded education programs. The federal government’s assertion that race-neutral admissions policies—even those that have been upheld by federal courts—are discriminatory reflects ongoing challenges to school desegregation efforts that rely, in part, on magnet schools to ensure diversity.
In addition to school integration efforts at the federal level, public education advocates have pursued challenges to school segregation under state constitutional claims. For example, plaintiffs in New Jersey’s ongoing desegregation lawsuit, Latino Action Network v. State, in which the Education Law Center is co-counsel, allege that intense school segregation throughout New Jersey violates several provisions of the state constitution—prohibiting racial segregation in schools, guaranteeing a “thorough and efficient” system of public education for all children in the state, and ensuring the equal protection of the law. The case is currently pending in New Jersey’s appellate court. Should plaintiffs prevail, there are numerous potential remedies that could alleviate school segregation, including interdistrict magnet schools and regional controlled choice, which have been successfully adopted as desegregation remedies in other states.
Magnet schools were designed to attract a diverse student body and have historically served as one component of school segregation remedies meant to encourage school and community integration via voluntary school choice. Magnet schools and their development have also been supported by the Department of Education’s Magnet School Assistance Program (MSAP). While MSAP has long enjoyed bipartisan support, the Trump Administration’s budget request for fiscal year 2026 seeks to defund the program, and the Department declined to provide continuation funding for several current grantees. The shifting legal and policy landscape is raising new questions for schools and districts seeking to address rising school segregation. The Trump Administration’s interpretation of the Supreme Court’s ruling in SFFA v. Harvard ending affirmative action in colleges and ongoing efforts to eliminate programs aimed at increasing diversity, equity, and inclusion may result in heightened scrutiny for magnet school policies governing admissions, student supports, and other activities that focus on supporting or celebrating particular student subgroups.
Many federal policies and actions are being challenged in court; several have been paused or stopped by courts. Magnet school leaders should of course consult administrators and legal counsel to receive accurate and recent legal guidance. But nothing about the current political environment should deter magnet school leaders from pursuing efforts to foster diverse, equitable, and nondiscriminatory school environments.
