Boston Parent Coalition for Academic Excellence Corp. v. Boston School Committee et al

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 1:25-cv-12015-WGY Document 85 Filed 03/19/26 Page1of6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

BOSTON PARENT COALITION FOR
ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE CORP.,

Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 25-12015-WGY

Vv.

BOSTON SCHOOL COMMITTEE and
MARY SKIPPER, in her official
capacity as Superintendent of
the Boston Public Schools,

Defendants.

eee ee eee ees ee ese es ese

YOUNG, D.J. March 19, 2026

ORDER

Boston Parent Coalition for Academic Excellence Corporation
(“the Coalition”) is a nonprofit organization that has sued the
School Committee of the City of Boston (“the Committee”) and the
Superintendent in her official capacity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
for violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment. See Compl. @7 121 - 137, ECF No. 1. The Coalition
alleges that the Committee’s “Tier System” admissions framework
for the Boston Exam Schools (Boston Latin School, Boston Latin
Academy, and the John D. O’Bryant School of Science and
Mathematics) racially discriminates against white and Asian-

American students. Id. @9 1, 3, 5, 128-130.

AUTHENTICATED [ 1 ]
U.S. GOVERNMENT.
INFORMATION
GPO

Case 1:25-cv-12015-WGY Document 85 Filed 03/19/26 Page 2of6

The Committee moves to dismiss the single count, on the
grounds that the complaint fails to state an equal protection
claim. See Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 19. The matter is fully”
briefed. See Mem. Supp. Mot. Dismiss (“Defs.’ Mem.”), ECF No.
20; Pl’s. Opp’n. Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 27; Defs.’ Reply Opp’n.
Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 48.

On March 10, 2026, this Court held a hearing on the motion
to dismiss, taking the matter under advisement. Elec. Clerk’s
Notes, ECF No. 83. At the hearing, this Court focused the
parties’ attention on the difference between the so-called “Zip
Code Plan” and Tier System. The Zip Code Plan was the policy at

issue in Boston Parent Coal. for Acad. Excellence Corp. v.

School Comm. of City of Boston. No. 21-10330-WGY, 2021 WL

4489840 (D. Mass. Oct. 1, 2021) [hereinafter Boston Parent

Coalition I], aff'd sub nom. Boston Parent Coal. for Acad.

Excellence Corp. v. School Comm. for City of Bos., 89 F. 4th 46

(lst Cir. 2023) [hereinafter Boston Parent Coalition II], cert.

denied Boston Parent Coal. for Acad. Excellence Corp. v. School

Comm. for City of Bos., 145 S. Ct. 15 (2024) [hereinafter Boston

Parent Coalition III].

The Zip Code Plan at issue in Boston Parent Coalition I

allocated seats at the Exam Schools via grade point average
(“GPA”) and zip code, removing the previously used standardized

test. See Boston Parent Coalition I, 2021 WL 4489840 at *6.

[2]

Case 1:25-cv-12015-WGY Document 85 Filed 03/19/26 Page3of6

Under the Zip Code Plan, 20% of seats were reserved for
applicants based purely on their GPA. Id. The remaining 80%
were divided among the twenty-nine Boston zip codes, or a
designated zip code created for homeless students and students
in state custody. Id. Students within each zip code competed
solely against the other students in that zip code (rather than
the applicant pool at large) for the seats allocated to that zip
code. Id. The Zip Code Plan was developed in 2020 and was used
until 2022. Compl. @ 29, 33.

This action challenges the Tier System, which was
implemented in the 2022-2023 admissions cycle. Id. 4 71. The
Tier System created “eight equally-sized socioeconomic tiers
based on five socioeconomic factors from the U.S. Census
Bureau’s American Community Survey (‘ACS’): limited English
households, single parent households, owner occupied households,
educational attainment, and poverty.” Defs.’ Mem. at 3
(citation omitted). After competing for a spot within their
“Tier” based on their GPA, applicants would then receive “bonus
points” for attending “a high-poverty elementary school (the
most common way to get bonus points),” experiencing
homelessness, being in the foster care system, or living in
public housing. Id. at 3-4. The Committee has continued to
“tweak” the Tier System since then, reintroducing the

standardized test to be calculated with applicants’ GPA to

[3]

Case 1:25-cv-12015-WGY Document 85 Filed 03/19/26 Page4of6

determine their ranking within each tier (2023-24), adjusting
the number of “bonus points” that students received based on
their individual tier (2024-25), and reducing the number of
tiers from eight to four (2025-26). Id. at 4.

Under controlling precedent in the First Circuit, the
Coalition has failed to allege a legally cognizable equal
protection claim. While the Coalition may have alleged
sufficient facts to clear the plausibility hurdle of Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) (6) in the absence of precedent,
the existing precedent governs here. The Tier System and Zip
Code Plan -- while different -- possess the same factual pillars
that the First Circuit rejected as insufficient to demonstrate
an equal protection violation in its 2023 consideration of
substantially the same issue. Both plans are undisputably
facially race-neutral and fail to demonstrate aggregate
disparate impact when using the comparator of school-aged

population. See Boston Parent Coalition II, 89 F. 4th at 59

(utilizing the comparator of “eligible school-age population.”).

The Court acknowledges that other Circuits, see Chinese Am.

Citizens All. of Greater New York v. Adams, 116 F. 4th 161 (2d

Cir. 2024); Sargent v. School Dist. of Philadelphia, 165 F. 4th

727 (3d Cir. 2026); Coalition for TJ v. Fairfax Cnty. Sch. Bd.,

68 F. 4th 864 (4th Cir. 2023), cert. denied 146 S. Ct. 541

(2024), and the Justices dissenting from the 2024 denial of

[4]

Case 1:25-cv-12015-WGY Document 85 Filed 03/19/26 Page5of6

certiorari in Boston Parent Coalition III, 145 S. Ct. at 15-18

(Alito, J., dissenting) (joined by Thomas, J.) (criticizing the
First Circuit’s requirement of disparate impact analysis based
upon overrepresentation and the requirement of “disparate impact
as a necessary element of an equal-protection claim”); Id. at 15
(Gorsuch, J., respecting the denial of certiorari); see also

Lincoln Caplan, What Trump Means for John Roberts’s Legacy, Harv.

Mac. (Oct. 8, 2025)

https: //www.harvardmagazine.com/legal/supreme-court-chief-
justice-john-roberts-trump-united-states, have adopted varying
approaches to the issue of facially neutral school admissions
policies. This Court is, of course, duty-bound to follow First

Circuit precedent. See United States v. Moore-Bush, 963 F. 3d

29, 37 (1st Cir. 2020), reh'g en banc, 36 F. 4th 320 (ist Cir.

2022), cert. denied Moore v. United States, 143 S. Ct. 2494

(2023). Accordingly, drawing every inference in favor of the
Coalition, the claim fails as matter of law under the First

Circuit’s holding in Boston Parent Coalition II.

The Court thus GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 19),
and DISMISSES the action, solely on the basis that it is bound
by the similarity of the present challenge to the First

Circuit’s decision in Boston Parent Coal. for Acad. Excellence

Corp. v. School Comm. for City of Bos., 89 F. 4th 46 (lst Cir.

2023). As discussed at the hearing, the Coalition’s right to

[5]

. Case 1:25-cv-12015-WGY Document 85 Filed 03/19/26 Page 6of6

appeal this narrow, but dispositive, legal determination is
saved. The Court expressly does not decide the remaining issues
raised in the motion. Should the First Circuit clarify
otherwise, the Court shall consider the remaining arguments upon

remand.

SO ORDERED.

lim. AN

WILLIAM b YORHG

DISTRICT JUDG

1 This is how my predecessor, Peleg Sprague (D. Mass 1841-
1865), would sign official documents. Now that I’m a Senior
District Judge I adopt this format in honor of all the judicial
colleagues, state and federal, with whom I have had the
privilege to serve over the past 48 years.

[6]