Once again, Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) is facing U.S. Supreme Court scrutiny for its arrogant pursuit of “social justice” rather than actual education. As a 55-year resident of this largest public school district in the state, I know better than to assume an anti-woke perspective is going to get much traction in this county. But maybe fair-minded people will rise up against the reckless spending of taxpayer dollars in defending positions that have nothing to do with actual education and everything to do with virtue signaling.
Last month, a public-interest law firm called the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court. The heart of the claim is that MCPS’ admission policies for middle school magnet programs have intentionally reduced opportunities for Asian American students while artificially promoting the selection of Black and Hispanic students. The PLF filed suit in Maryland, losing at the District Court and the Court of Appeals level. Statistically, then, the odds of the Supreme Court exercising its discretion to reach this case are low, but MCPS’ recent history with the High Court gives PLF a fighting chance.
The saga began with a 2016 evaluation of special academic programs by a reportedly independent group called Metis Associates. Commissioning a group whose mission statement includes “empowering mission-driven organizations to achieve social impact” certainly suggests a progressive perspective and predictable outcome. Not surprisingly, then, its study concluded that selective middle school programs evidenced severe underrepresentation of Black and Latino students. MCPS then introduced a pilot program using “peer grouping” of academic peer groups to effectively create admissions quotas where high-performing elementary schools with high Asian American student populations compete against themselves for admission, rather than against candidates from throughout the county. In addition, according to PLF, MCPS’ new rules “norm” Cognitive Abilities Test scores according to the socioeconomic status of the student’s elementary school. Again, the intended effect of this artificial boosting is to expand Black and Latino admissions at the ultimate expense of Asian American students who receive no such boost.
In 2017, admissions of Asian American students dropped by 23%. When the new admissions program was formally established in 2018, admissions dropped by another 20%. MCPS claims it again changed its admission process during COVID, and that they currently have a “lottery and criteria-based system,” whatever that means. Obscuring what MCPS does — whether by masking quotas as “academic peer groups” or by not clearly specifying the current admissions criteria — has proven a successful litigation strategy.
MCPS has particularly unclean hands when pushing a progressive agenda. In June 2025, MCPS’ long battle to indoctrinate children as young as kindergarteners in LGBTQ+ education failed at the Supreme Court with the ruling in Mahmoud v. Taylor. MCPS masked its overt “inclusive” sexuality training by relegating it to controversial books hand-selected by LGBTQ+ organizations, such as “Intersection Allies,” “Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope” and several books celebrating children having two dads or two moms in their household. MCPS even pushed the teachers to criticize any children who had the temerity to challenge the normative values. The School Board initially promised the parents they could opt their children out of these moral trainings, but soon after decided it was “too burdensome” to keep allowing opt-outs, making the curriculum mandatory.
The heavy-handed approach of MCPS led to some actual diversity — a coalition of parents from Muslim, Catholic and other religions came together to successfully sue. While the eventual Supreme Court opinion delivered a serious victory for parental rights, the litigation came at a high cost to taxpayers. MCPS’ refusal to budge on its sexual tolerance agenda meant taxpayers funded representation by WilmerHale, a global law firm whose partners charge anywhere from $1,000 to $2,000 per hour. I can only imagine the final taxpayer tab for representing MCPS in the U.S. District Court, Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. And the PLF case is on a similar track of multiple layers and many taxpayers footing the bill for many thousands of dollars. As MCPS knows all too well, it is always an easier fight when somebody else’s dollars are at stake.
Jim Trusty is an attorney and Montgomery County resident.
