Federal judge rules that admissions changes at nation’s top public school discriminate against Asian

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Judge Hilton denied FCPS's motion for a stay. FCPS will have to use a merit-based admission system for the class of 2026.

They'll appeal for a stay to the 4th Circuit as well. This was a procedural move and no one realistically expected that Hilton would essentially reverse himself.

It would be genuinely shocking if the stay were not granted by the 4th Circuit.

It would not be "shocking" if the 4th Circuit also denied the stay. I haven't been following the district court stay proceedings, but FCPS will presumably argue irreparable harm in the absence of a stay. But the potential harm to applicants denied under the existing (invalidated) policy is significant and it may be hard for FCPS to show that the balance of harms (another prerequisite for a stay) favors a stay -- on paper, the possible constitutional harm to applicants from being denied admission under a policy the district court has already found to be unconstitutional outweighs the hardship FCPS might face from using a different admissions policy (i.e. the old policy!) while the appeal proceeds. The outcome will likely depend, in part, on the makeup of motions panel that considers FCPS's petition -- and the 4th Circuit tilts to the left -- but, objectively, FCPS does not have a clear cut winner of a stay argument (in fact, the odds likely favor denial of a stay).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Judge Hilton denied FCPS's motion for a stay. FCPS will have to use a merit-based admission system for the class of 2026.

They'll appeal for a stay to the 4th Circuit as well. This was a procedural move and no one realistically expected that Hilton would essentially reverse himself.

It would be genuinely shocking if the stay were not granted by the 4th Circuit.

That wouldn’t be essentially reversing himself lmao, it would be an acknowledgment of the uncertainty and potential harm of the school district being forced to jerk around families. This kind of stay is granted all the time.

Given the language that he used in the opinion, it absolutely would be reversing himself. He couldn't grant the stay without seriously doing damage to his core arguments in the opinion.

If you find a school process is racist then you wouldn't grant a stay to allow the racist process to remain in place. Racism is more harm to kids than reverting to an old admission system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Black applicants jumped by 70% from 2024 to 2025. They didn't even want to participate in the process prior to the changes.

DP. So this was my understanding: that historically Black applicants were low in number and that this partially explained the very low admissions numbers of Black students. But someone upthread stated that all/nearly all qualified Black students had applied in previous years but mostly had been rejected (rather than choosing not to apply or choosing not to attend).

Which is correct?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Judge Hilton denied FCPS's motion for a stay. FCPS will have to use a merit-based admission system for the class of 2026.

They'll appeal for a stay to the 4th Circuit as well. This was a procedural move and no one realistically expected that Hilton would essentially reverse himself.

It would be genuinely shocking if the stay were not granted by the 4th Circuit.

It would not be "shocking" if the 4th Circuit also denied the stay. I haven't been following the district court stay proceedings, but FCPS will presumably argue irreparable harm in the absence of a stay. But the potential harm to applicants denied under the existing (invalidated) policy is significant and it may be hard for FCPS to show that the balance of harms (another prerequisite for a stay) favors a stay -- on paper, the possible constitutional harm to applicants from being denied admission under a policy the district court has already found to be unconstitutional outweighs the hardship FCPS might face from using a different admissions policy (i.e. the old policy!) while the appeal proceeds. The outcome will likely depend, in part, on the makeup of motions panel that considers FCPS's petition -- and the 4th Circuit tilts to the left -- but, objectively, FCPS does not have a clear cut winner of a stay argument (in fact, the odds likely favor denial of a stay).

C4TJ has two primary complainants and one of them has students who were admitted both under the previous and under the new admissions policy. There are over 2,500 applicants to TJ who will be impacted by a significant delay in the process, not to mention the domino effect on both TJ and the other public schools who are making hiring decisions and scheduling courses based on the eventual results of this process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Black applicants jumped by 70% from 2024 to 2025. They didn't even want to participate in the process prior to the changes.

DP. So this was my understanding: that historically Black applicants were low in number and that this partially explained the very low admissions numbers of Black students. But someone upthread stated that all/nearly all qualified Black students had applied in previous years but mostly had been rejected (rather than choosing not to apply or choosing not to attend).

Which is correct?

The latter. Not anywhere close to all Black applicants had applied via the previous process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Judge Hilton denied FCPS's motion for a stay. FCPS will have to use a merit-based admission system for the class of 2026.

They'll appeal for a stay to the 4th Circuit as well. This was a procedural move and no one realistically expected that Hilton would essentially reverse himself.

It would be genuinely shocking if the stay were not granted by the 4th Circuit.

That wouldn’t be essentially reversing himself lmao, it would be an acknowledgment of the uncertainty and potential harm of the school district being forced to jerk around families. This kind of stay is granted all the time.

Given the language that he used in the opinion, it absolutely would be reversing himself. He couldn't grant the stay without seriously doing damage to his core arguments in the opinion.

If you find a school process is racist then you wouldn't grant a stay to allow the racist process to remain in place. Racism is more harm to kids than reverting to an old admission system.

And since no one has been prepping for the old test, the numbers will look more natural for this incoming class. Making everyone look foolish. Win!

If prepping (or more) starts again next year, well, maybe the complainers will have moved on by then. Maybe everyone will forget.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Judge Hilton denied FCPS's motion for a stay. FCPS will have to use a merit-based admission system for the class of 2026.

They'll appeal for a stay to the 4th Circuit as well. This was a procedural move and no one realistically expected that Hilton would essentially reverse himself.

It would be genuinely shocking if the stay were not granted by the 4th Circuit.

It would not be "shocking" if the 4th Circuit also denied the stay. I haven't been following the district court stay proceedings, but FCPS will presumably argue irreparable harm in the absence of a stay. But the potential harm to applicants denied under the existing (invalidated) policy is significant and it may be hard for FCPS to show that the balance of harms (another prerequisite for a stay) favors a stay -- on paper, the possible constitutional harm to applicants from being denied admission under a policy the district court has already found to be unconstitutional outweighs the hardship FCPS might face from using a different admissions policy (i.e. the old policy!) while the appeal proceeds. The outcome will likely depend, in part, on the makeup of motions panel that considers FCPS's petition -- and the 4th Circuit tilts to the left -- but, objectively, FCPS does not have a clear cut winner of a stay argument (in fact, the odds likely favor denial of a stay).

C4TJ has two primary complainants and one of them has students who were admitted both under the previous and under the new admissions policy. There are over 2,500 applicants to TJ who will be impacted by a significant delay in the process, not to mention the domino effect on both TJ and the other public schools who are making hiring decisions and scheduling courses based on the eventual results of this process.

Balance of harms looks not at just the two primary complainants, but everyone who would be impacted by an unconstiutional policy. I don't have a horse in this race, but it is far easier for FCPS to use a different admissions system this year (any system that passes constitutional muster) than to unwind this year's admissions if the 4th Circuit affirms. Important to remember that, as a matter of law, the "2,500 applicants to TJ" don't have a right to have their applications considered under any particular admissions system, just a right to one that is constitutional (and otherwise lawful). So there is no legal harm to current applicants from changing to a different admissions system for this year.

(At the extreme, FCPS could -- for example -- just put every application into a big bucket and randomly select those who are admitted. As dumb as that sounds, it would certainly be constitutional. While that would obviously never happen, it shows that FCPS isn't facing any present irreparable harm.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Judge Hilton denied FCPS's motion for a stay. FCPS will have to use a merit-based admission system for the class of 2026.

They'll appeal for a stay to the 4th Circuit as well. This was a procedural move and no one realistically expected that Hilton would essentially reverse himself.

It would be genuinely shocking if the stay were not granted by the 4th Circuit.

It would not be "shocking" if the 4th Circuit also denied the stay. I haven't been following the district court stay proceedings, but FCPS will presumably argue irreparable harm in the absence of a stay. But the potential harm to applicants denied under the existing (invalidated) policy is significant and it may be hard for FCPS to show that the balance of harms (another prerequisite for a stay) favors a stay -- on paper, the possible constitutional harm to applicants from being denied admission under a policy the district court has already found to be unconstitutional outweighs the hardship FCPS might face from using a different admissions policy (i.e. the old policy!) while the appeal proceeds. The outcome will likely depend, in part, on the makeup of motions panel that considers FCPS's petition -- and the 4th Circuit tilts to the left -- but, objectively, FCPS does not have a clear cut winner of a stay argument (in fact, the odds likely favor denial of a stay).

C4TJ has two primary complainants and one of them has students who were admitted both under the previous and under the new admissions policy. There are over 2,500 applicants to TJ who will be impacted by a significant delay in the process, not to mention the domino effect on both TJ and the other public schools who are making hiring decisions and scheduling courses based on the eventual results of this process.

Balance of harms looks not at just the two primary complainants, but everyone who would be impacted by an unconstiutional policy. I don't have a horse in this race, but it is far easier for FCPS to use a different admissions system this year (any system that passes constitutional muster) than to unwind this year's admissions if the 4th Circuit affirms. Important to remember that, as a matter of law, the "2,500 applicants to TJ" don't have a right to have their applications considered under any particular admissions system, just a right to one that is constitutional (and otherwise lawful). So there is no legal harm to current applicants from changing to a different admissions system for this year.

(At the extreme, FCPS could -- for example -- just put every application into a big bucket and randomly select those who are admitted. As dumb as that sounds, it would certainly be constitutional. While that would obviously never happen, it shows that FCPS isn't facing any present irreparable harm.)

At this point I could almost see a pure lottery. Just a big screw you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Judge Hilton denied FCPS's motion for a stay. FCPS will have to use a merit-based admission system for the class of 2026.

They'll appeal for a stay to the 4th Circuit as well. This was a procedural move and no one realistically expected that Hilton would essentially reverse himself.

It would be genuinely shocking if the stay were not granted by the 4th Circuit.

It would not be "shocking" if the 4th Circuit also denied the stay. I haven't been following the district court stay proceedings, but FCPS will presumably argue irreparable harm in the absence of a stay. But the potential harm to applicants denied under the existing (invalidated) policy is significant and it may be hard for FCPS to show that the balance of harms (another prerequisite for a stay) favors a stay -- on paper, the possible constitutional harm to applicants from being denied admission under a policy the district court has already found to be unconstitutional outweighs the hardship FCPS might face from using a different admissions policy (i.e. the old policy!) while the appeal proceeds. The outcome will likely depend, in part, on the makeup of motions panel that considers FCPS's petition -- and the 4th Circuit tilts to the left -- but, objectively, FCPS does not have a clear cut winner of a stay argument (in fact, the odds likely favor denial of a stay).

C4TJ has two primary complainants and one of them has students who were admitted both under the previous and under the new admissions policy. There are over 2,500 applicants to TJ who will be impacted by a significant delay in the process, not to mention the domino effect on both TJ and the other public schools who are making hiring decisions and scheduling courses based on the eventual results of this process.

Balance of harms looks not at just the two primary complainants, but everyone who would be impacted by an unconstiutional policy. I don't have a horse in this race, but it is far easier for FCPS to use a different admissions system this year (any system that passes constitutional muster) than to unwind this year's admissions if the 4th Circuit affirms. Important to remember that, as a matter of law, the "2,500 applicants to TJ" don't have a right to have their applications considered under any particular admissions system, just a right to one that is constitutional (and otherwise lawful). So there is no legal harm to current applicants from changing to a different admissions system for this year.

(At the extreme, FCPS could -- for example -- just put every application into a big bucket and randomly select those who are admitted. As dumb as that sounds, it would certainly be constitutional. While that would obviously never happen, it shows that FCPS isn't facing any present irreparable harm.)

At this point I could almost see a pure lottery. Just a big screw you.

Doubt it. Students are struggling with the workload so they know they can't bring in random lottery applicants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Judge Hilton denied FCPS's motion for a stay. FCPS will have to use a merit-based admission system for the class of 2026.

They'll appeal for a stay to the 4th Circuit as well. This was a procedural move and no one realistically expected that Hilton would essentially reverse himself.

It would be genuinely shocking if the stay were not granted by the 4th Circuit.

It would not be "shocking" if the 4th Circuit also denied the stay. I haven't been following the district court stay proceedings, but FCPS will presumably argue irreparable harm in the absence of a stay. But the potential harm to applicants denied under the existing (invalidated) policy is significant and it may be hard for FCPS to show that the balance of harms (another prerequisite for a stay) favors a stay -- on paper, the possible constitutional harm to applicants from being denied admission under a policy the district court has already found to be unconstitutional outweighs the hardship FCPS might face from using a different admissions policy (i.e. the old policy!) while the appeal proceeds. The outcome will likely depend, in part, on the makeup of motions panel that considers FCPS's petition -- and the 4th Circuit tilts to the left -- but, objectively, FCPS does not have a clear cut winner of a stay argument (in fact, the odds likely favor denial of a stay).

C4TJ has two primary complainants and one of them has students who were admitted both under the previous and under the new admissions policy. There are over 2,500 applicants to TJ who will be impacted by a significant delay in the process, not to mention the domino effect on both TJ and the other public schools who are making hiring decisions and scheduling courses based on the eventual results of this process.

Balance of harms looks not at just the two primary complainants, but everyone who would be impacted by an unconstiutional policy. I don't have a horse in this race, but it is far easier for FCPS to use a different admissions system this year (any system that passes constitutional muster) than to unwind this year's admissions if the 4th Circuit affirms. Important to remember that, as a matter of law, the "2,500 applicants to TJ" don't have a right to have their applications considered under any particular admissions system, just a right to one that is constitutional (and otherwise lawful). So there is no legal harm to current applicants from changing to a different admissions system for this year.

(At the extreme, FCPS could -- for example -- just put every application into a big bucket and randomly select those who are admitted. As dumb as that sounds, it would certainly be constitutional. While that would obviously never happen, it shows that FCPS isn't facing any present irreparable harm.)

At this point I could almost see a pure lottery. Just a big screw you.

Doubt it. Students are struggling with the workload so they know they can't bring in random lottery applicants.

Where are you hearing that?

And besides, TJ freshmen have ALWAYS struggled with the workload.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Judge Hilton denied FCPS's motion for a stay. FCPS will have to use a merit-based admission system for the class of 2026.

They'll appeal for a stay to the 4th Circuit as well. This was a procedural move and no one realistically expected that Hilton would essentially reverse himself.

It would be genuinely shocking if the stay were not granted by the 4th Circuit.

It would not be "shocking" if the 4th Circuit also denied the stay. I haven't been following the district court stay proceedings, but FCPS will presumably argue irreparable harm in the absence of a stay. But the potential harm to applicants denied under the existing (invalidated) policy is significant and it may be hard for FCPS to show that the balance of harms (another prerequisite for a stay) favors a stay -- on paper, the possible constitutional harm to applicants from being denied admission under a policy the district court has already found to be unconstitutional outweighs the hardship FCPS might face from using a different admissions policy (i.e. the old policy!) while the appeal proceeds. The outcome will likely depend, in part, on the makeup of motions panel that considers FCPS's petition -- and the 4th Circuit tilts to the left -- but, objectively, FCPS does not have a clear cut winner of a stay argument (in fact, the odds likely favor denial of a stay).

C4TJ has two primary complainants and one of them has students who were admitted both under the previous and under the new admissions policy. There are over 2,500 applicants to TJ who will be impacted by a significant delay in the process, not to mention the domino effect on both TJ and the other public schools who are making hiring decisions and scheduling courses based on the eventual results of this process.

Balance of harms looks not at just the two primary complainants, but everyone who would be impacted by an unconstiutional policy. I don't have a horse in this race, but it is far easier for FCPS to use a different admissions system this year (any system that passes constitutional muster) than to unwind this year's admissions if the 4th Circuit affirms. Important to remember that, as a matter of law, the "2,500 applicants to TJ" don't have a right to have their applications considered under any particular admissions system, just a right to one that is constitutional (and otherwise lawful). So there is no legal harm to current applicants from changing to a different admissions system for this year.

(At the extreme, FCPS could -- for example -- just put every application into a big bucket and randomly select those who are admitted. As dumb as that sounds, it would certainly be constitutional. While that would obviously never happen, it shows that FCPS isn't facing any present irreparable harm.)

This is a bizarre thing to say. Admissions for a magnet or governor's school isn't easy, no matter how it's done. Just waving your hands and saying "Now do a new admissions process that is constitutional" is silly and unserious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Judge Hilton denied FCPS's motion for a stay. FCPS will have to use a merit-based admission system for the class of 2026.

They'll appeal for a stay to the 4th Circuit as well. This was a procedural move and no one realistically expected that Hilton would essentially reverse himself.

It would be genuinely shocking if the stay were not granted by the 4th Circuit.

It would not be "shocking" if the 4th Circuit also denied the stay. I haven't been following the district court stay proceedings, but FCPS will presumably argue irreparable harm in the absence of a stay. But the potential harm to applicants denied under the existing (invalidated) policy is significant and it may be hard for FCPS to show that the balance of harms (another prerequisite for a stay) favors a stay -- on paper, the possible constitutional harm to applicants from being denied admission under a policy the district court has already found to be unconstitutional outweighs the hardship FCPS might face from using a different admissions policy (i.e. the old policy!) while the appeal proceeds. The outcome will likely depend, in part, on the makeup of motions panel that considers FCPS's petition -- and the 4th Circuit tilts to the left -- but, objectively, FCPS does not have a clear cut winner of a stay argument (in fact, the odds likely favor denial of a stay).

C4TJ has two primary complainants and one of them has students who were admitted both under the previous and under the new admissions policy. There are over 2,500 applicants to TJ who will be impacted by a significant delay in the process, not to mention the domino effect on both TJ and the other public schools who are making hiring decisions and scheduling courses based on the eventual results of this process.

Balance of harms looks not at just the two primary complainants, but everyone who would be impacted by an unconstiutional policy. I don't have a horse in this race, but it is far easier for FCPS to use a different admissions system this year (any system that passes constitutional muster) than to unwind this year's admissions if the 4th Circuit affirms. Important to remember that, as a matter of law, the "2,500 applicants to TJ" don't have a right to have their applications considered under any particular admissions system, just a right to one that is constitutional (and otherwise lawful). So there is no legal harm to current applicants from changing to a different admissions system for this year.

(At the extreme, FCPS could -- for example -- just put every application into a big bucket and randomly select those who are admitted. As dumb as that sounds, it would certainly be constitutional. While that would obviously never happen, it shows that FCPS isn't facing any present irreparable harm.)

This is a bizarre thing to say. Admissions for a magnet or governor's school isn't easy, no matter how it's done. Just waving your hands and saying "Now do a new admissions process that is constitutional" is silly and unserious.

Then they should not have been so racist in the first place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Judge Hilton denied FCPS's motion for a stay. FCPS will have to use a merit-based admission system for the class of 2026.

They'll appeal for a stay to the 4th Circuit as well. This was a procedural move and no one realistically expected that Hilton would essentially reverse himself.

It would be genuinely shocking if the stay were not granted by the 4th Circuit.

It would not be "shocking" if the 4th Circuit also denied the stay. I haven't been following the district court stay proceedings, but FCPS will presumably argue irreparable harm in the absence of a stay. But the potential harm to applicants denied under the existing (invalidated) policy is significant and it may be hard for FCPS to show that the balance of harms (another prerequisite for a stay) favors a stay -- on paper, the possible constitutional harm to applicants from being denied admission under a policy the district court has already found to be unconstitutional outweighs the hardship FCPS might face from using a different admissions policy (i.e. the old policy!) while the appeal proceeds. The outcome will likely depend, in part, on the makeup of motions panel that considers FCPS's petition -- and the 4th Circuit tilts to the left -- but, objectively, FCPS does not have a clear cut winner of a stay argument (in fact, the odds likely favor denial of a stay).

C4TJ has two primary complainants and one of them has students who were admitted both under the previous and under the new admissions policy. There are over 2,500 applicants to TJ who will be impacted by a significant delay in the process, not to mention the domino effect on both TJ and the other public schools who are making hiring decisions and scheduling courses based on the eventual results of this process.

Balance of harms looks not at just the two primary complainants, but everyone who would be impacted by an unconstiutional policy. I don't have a horse in this race, but it is far easier for FCPS to use a different admissions system this year (any system that passes constitutional muster) than to unwind this year's admissions if the 4th Circuit affirms. Important to remember that, as a matter of law, the "2,500 applicants to TJ" don't have a right to have their applications considered under any particular admissions system, just a right to one that is constitutional (and otherwise lawful). So there is no legal harm to current applicants from changing to a different admissions system for this year.

(At the extreme, FCPS could -- for example -- just put every application into a big bucket and randomly select those who are admitted. As dumb as that sounds, it would certainly be constitutional. While that would obviously never happen, it shows that FCPS isn't facing any present irreparable harm.)

This is a bizarre thing to say. Admissions for a magnet or governor's school isn't easy, no matter how it's done. Just waving your hands and saying "Now do a new admissions process that is constitutional" is silly and unserious.

You bolded only half of a comparative statement ("far easier . . . than . . .") that is certainly accurate. The statement didn't say it was easy, just easier than the alternative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Judge Hilton denied FCPS's motion for a stay. FCPS will have to use a merit-based admission system for the class of 2026.

They'll appeal for a stay to the 4th Circuit as well. This was a procedural move and no one realistically expected that Hilton would essentially reverse himself.

It would be genuinely shocking if the stay were not granted by the 4th Circuit.

It would not be "shocking" if the 4th Circuit also denied the stay. I haven't been following the district court stay proceedings, but FCPS will presumably argue irreparable harm in the absence of a stay. But the potential harm to applicants denied under the existing (invalidated) policy is significant and it may be hard for FCPS to show that the balance of harms (another prerequisite for a stay) favors a stay -- on paper, the possible constitutional harm to applicants from being denied admission under a policy the district court has already found to be unconstitutional outweighs the hardship FCPS might face from using a different admissions policy (i.e. the old policy!) while the appeal proceeds. The outcome will likely depend, in part, on the makeup of motions panel that considers FCPS's petition -- and the 4th Circuit tilts to the left -- but, objectively, FCPS does not have a clear cut winner of a stay argument (in fact, the odds likely favor denial of a stay).

C4TJ has two primary complainants and one of them has students who were admitted both under the previous and under the new admissions policy. There are over 2,500 applicants to TJ who will be impacted by a significant delay in the process, not to mention the domino effect on both TJ and the other public schools who are making hiring decisions and scheduling courses based on the eventual results of this process.

Balance of harms looks not at just the two primary complainants, but everyone who would be impacted by an unconstiutional policy. I don't have a horse in this race, but it is far easier for FCPS to use a different admissions system this year (any system that passes constitutional muster) than to unwind this year's admissions if the 4th Circuit affirms. Important to remember that, as a matter of law, the "2,500 applicants to TJ" don't have a right to have their applications considered under any particular admissions system, just a right to one that is constitutional (and otherwise lawful). So there is no legal harm to current applicants from changing to a different admissions system for this year.

(At the extreme, FCPS could -- for example -- just put every application into a big bucket and randomly select those who are admitted. As dumb as that sounds, it would certainly be constitutional. While that would obviously never happen, it shows that FCPS isn't facing any present irreparable harm.)

At this point I could almost see a pure lottery. Just a big screw you.

Doubt it. Students are struggling with the workload so they know they can't bring in random lottery applicants.

Where are you hearing that?

And besides, TJ freshmen have ALWAYS struggled with the workload.

It's openly discussed within the school. I'm not talking about those no longer there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Judge Hilton denied FCPS's motion for a stay. FCPS will have to use a merit-based admission system for the class of 2026.

They'll appeal for a stay to the 4th Circuit as well. This was a procedural move and no one realistically expected that Hilton would essentially reverse himself.

It would be genuinely shocking if the stay were not granted by the 4th Circuit.

It would not be "shocking" if the 4th Circuit also denied the stay. I haven't been following the district court stay proceedings, but FCPS will presumably argue irreparable harm in the absence of a stay. But the potential harm to applicants denied under the existing (invalidated) policy is significant and it may be hard for FCPS to show that the balance of harms (another prerequisite for a stay) favors a stay -- on paper, the possible constitutional harm to applicants from being denied admission under a policy the district court has already found to be unconstitutional outweighs the hardship FCPS might face from using a different admissions policy (i.e. the old policy!) while the appeal proceeds. The outcome will likely depend, in part, on the makeup of motions panel that considers FCPS's petition -- and the 4th Circuit tilts to the left -- but, objectively, FCPS does not have a clear cut winner of a stay argument (in fact, the odds likely favor denial of a stay).

C4TJ has two primary complainants and one of them has students who were admitted both under the previous and under the new admissions policy. There are over 2,500 applicants to TJ who will be impacted by a significant delay in the process, not to mention the domino effect on both TJ and the other public schools who are making hiring decisions and scheduling courses based on the eventual results of this process.

Balance of harms looks not at just the two primary complainants, but everyone who would be impacted by an unconstiutional policy. I don't have a horse in this race, but it is far easier for FCPS to use a different admissions system this year (any system that passes constitutional muster) than to unwind this year's admissions if the 4th Circuit affirms. Important to remember that, as a matter of law, the "2,500 applicants to TJ" don't have a right to have their applications considered under any particular admissions system, just a right to one that is constitutional (and otherwise lawful). So there is no legal harm to current applicants from changing to a different admissions system for this year.

(At the extreme, FCPS could -- for example -- just put every application into a big bucket and randomly select those who are admitted. As dumb as that sounds, it would certainly be constitutional. While that would obviously never happen, it shows that FCPS isn't facing any present irreparable harm.)

At this point I could almost see a pure lottery. Just a big screw you.

Doubt it. Students are struggling with the workload so they know they can't bring in random lottery applicants.

Where are you hearing that?

And besides, TJ freshmen have ALWAYS struggled with the workload.

It's openly discussed within the school. I'm not talking about those no longer there.

It’s ALWAYS openly discussed within the school.