Boston Parent Coalition for Academic Excellence Corporation, a nonprofit organization, filed suit against the Boston School Committee and the Superintendent of Boston Public Schools, alleging that the admissions policy for Boston’s selective “exam schools” (Boston Latin School, Boston Latin Academy, and John D. O’Bryant School of Science and Mathematics) violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Coalition challenged the School Committee’s current “Tier System” for admissions, asserting that it discriminates against white and Asian American students.
The challenged policy replaced an earlier “Zip Code Plan” that had been adopted during the COVID-19 pandemic. Under that prior plan, students were admitted based on grade point average and geographic distribution across Boston zip codes. That plan had already been upheld by the First Circuit Court of Appeals, which rejected claims that it unlawfully discriminated against white and Asian American students.
The current Tier System, implemented beginning in the 2022–2023 admissions cycle, groups applicants into socioeconomic tiers based on factors such as household income, parental education, and housing stability. Students compete within their assigned tier based on academic performance, and additional “bonus points” may be awarded based on factors such as attending a high-poverty school or experiencing homelessness.
The School Committee moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the Coalition’s claims were foreclosed by the First Circuit’s prior decision upholding the earlier admissions framework. The Court agreed. It explained that although the Tier System differs in structure from the Zip Code Plan, both systems rely on similar underlying principles and are facially race-neutral. The Court further noted that the First Circuit had already rejected arguments that such policies produce unlawful disparate impacts when measured against the appropriate comparator, namely the broader population of school-aged children rather than the applicant pool.
Applying that precedent, the Court held that the Coalition failed to state a legally viable equal protection claim. Even assuming the Coalition had alleged sufficient facts in the absence of binding precedent, the Court concluded that it was required to follow the First Circuit’s prior ruling addressing substantially similar claims. Accordingly, the Court granted the motion to dismiss.
The Court emphasized that its decision was based solely on the binding effect of existing appellate precedent and did not reach other arguments raised by the parties. The plaintiffs’ ability to appeal the dismissal remains intact.
Bos. Parent Coal. for Acad. Excellence Corp. v. Bos. Sch. Comm. (D.Mass. Mar. 19, 2026, No. 25-12015-WGY) 2026 WL 776160.
Note: Although this case arises in the public school context, it reflects broader legal scrutiny of admissions policies that rely on socioeconomic factors to promote diversity. Courts continue to treat facially neutral policies as permissible where they are not intentionally discriminatory and are evaluated against appropriate population benchmarks.