Association for Education Fairness v. Montgomery County Board of Education
No. 26-12 · October Term 2026 · Civil Rights
Before oral argument the model reads the case's structure and its docket: amicus briefs by side, the Solicitor General's position, the parties' types, the issue area, and which way the lower court ruled, against each justice's record on all of those. That separates the nine, and the table shows it. It does not yet separate cases well enough for a case-level number: the calibration chosen for that arm caps how sure nine correlated votes may make a case, so case-level odds wait for the transcript.
The case
The Association for Education Fairness is suing the Montgomery County Board of Education, challenging the school district's facially neutral admissions criteria, alleging they were implemented with a racially discriminatory purpose. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision, the details of which are not available, but the Supreme Court has granted review to determine if a plaintiff challenging such a policy must first demonstrate that the targeted racial group experienced an aggregate disparate impact relative to its share of the applicant pool. The core question for the Court is whether evidence of discriminatory intent can be considered without a prior showing of disparate impact.
- Must a plaintiff show disparate impact before a court can consider evidence of discriminatory intent in a challenge to facially neutral admissions criteria?
- This case will clarify the evidentiary burden on plaintiffs alleging racial discrimination in school admissions policies.
- The Court's decision will impact how future challenges to facially neutral policies are litigated, particularly concerning the sequence and necessity of proving discriminatory effect versus discriminatory purpose.
AI brief written by gemini-2.5-flash from the questions presented and the Oyez facts on 2026-10-29. Commentary only; it is not an input to the model.
Question presented, as filed
Whether a plaintiff alleging that a school district implemented facially-neutral admissions criteria for a racially discriminatory purpose must show that the criteria produced a disparate impact on the targeted racial group before a court may consider evidence of discriminatory intent.
The Court's orders on the grant
GRANTED LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: WHETHER A PLAINTIFF CHALLENGING A FACIALLY NEUTRAL ADMISSIONS POLICY AS RACIALLY DISCRIMINATORY MUST ESTABLISH THAT THE TARGETED RACIAL GROUP SUFFERED AN AGGREGATE DISPARATE IMPACT RELATIVE TO ITS SHARE OF THE APPLICANT POOL.
The nine
Each justice's predicted vote and the record behind it: how often they have voted for the petitioner overall, in Civil Rights cases, and when the lower court ruled conservative; and, once argued, how many questions they put to each side (the side a justice questions more tends to lose their vote). The note under each row is the AI brief's reading, commentary rather than model input.
| Justice | Predicted | Overall | This issue | Lower court conservative | At argument |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
John G. Roberts Republican appointee · since OT2005 Chief Justice Roberts often emphasizes colorblindness in the application of law and has been skeptical of policies that consider race, which might lead him to favor a stricter standard for proving discriminatory intent without a disparate impact. | 69% Association for Education Fairness | 68% for the petitioner · 1,512 votes | 70% Civil Rights · 248 votes | 61% lower court conservative · 734 votes | not yet argued |
Clarence Thomas Republican appointee · since OT1991 Justice Thomas consistently advocates for a strict interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause, often rejecting race-conscious policies and requiring clear proof of discriminatory intent, which could align him with the petitioner's argument against requiring disparate impact first. | 69% Association for Education Fairness | 59% for the petitioner · 2,801 votes | 57% Civil Rights · 464 votes | 43% lower court conservative · 1,365 votes | not yet argued |
Samuel A. Alito Republican appointee · since OT2005 Justice Alito generally takes a conservative approach to civil rights cases, often requiring a high bar for proving discrimination and focusing on original intent, which might lead him to scrutinize the necessity of a disparate impact showing. | 69% Association for Education Fairness | 62% for the petitioner · 1,469 votes | 65% Civil Rights · 244 votes | 48% lower court conservative · 722 votes | not yet argued |
Sonia Sotomayor Democratic appointee · since OT2009 Justice Sotomayor often emphasizes the real-world effects of policies on minority groups and has been a strong advocate for robust enforcement of anti-discrimination laws, which could lead her to be wary of adding an additional burden like disparate impact before considering intent. | 69% Association for Education Fairness | 61% for the petitioner · 1,192 votes | 61% Civil Rights · 192 votes | 76% lower court conservative · 594 votes | not yet argued |
Elena Kagan Democratic appointee · since OT2010 Justice Kagan often seeks to balance competing interests and has shown a willingness to consider both intent and effect in discrimination cases, suggesting she would carefully weigh the practical implications of requiring disparate impact before intent. | 69% Association for Education Fairness | 63% for the petitioner · 1,072 votes | 60% Civil Rights · 171 votes | 75% lower court conservative · 543 votes | not yet argued |
Neil M. Gorsuch Republican appointee · since OT2016 Justice Gorsuch often adheres to textualism and originalism, and in civil rights cases, he has sometimes sided with outcomes that protect individual liberties against government overreach, which could influence his view on the evidentiary requirements for proving discrimination. | 69% Association for Education Fairness | 65% for the petitioner · 592 votes | 70% Civil Rights · 99 votes | 59% lower court conservative · 286 votes | not yet argued |
Brett M. Kavanaugh Republican appointee · since OT2018 Justice Kavanaugh often takes a pragmatic approach and has generally been seen as a moderate conservative, which might lead him to consider the established precedents regarding discriminatory intent and disparate impact in a nuanced way. | 69% Association for Education Fairness | 69% for the petitioner · 498 votes | 64% Civil Rights · 83 votes | 62% lower court conservative · 244 votes | not yet argued |
Amy Coney Barrett Republican appointee · since OT2020 Justice Barrett often emphasizes originalism and textualism, and her jurisprudence suggests a focus on the plain meaning of statutes and constitutional provisions, which would guide her analysis of the evidentiary standards for proving discriminatory purpose. | 69% Association for Education Fairness | 66% for the petitioner · 360 votes | 72% Civil Rights · 61 votes | 60% lower court conservative · 178 votes | not yet argued |
Ketanji Brown Jackson Democratic appointee · since OT2022 Justice Jackson has a background as a public defender and has often expressed concerns about systemic inequalities and the practical impact of legal standards on marginalized communities, which could lead her to carefully consider the burden placed on plaintiffs alleging discrimination. | 76% Association for Education Fairness | 59% for the petitioner · 244 votes | 47% Civil Rights · 38 votes | 80% lower court conservative · 127 votes | not yet argued |
Rates are each justice's own participation record in the Supreme Court Database, the same history the model trains on; a rate on fewer than five votes is not shown. The predicted vote is VotePredictor SCOTUS' per-justice probability from the structural arm: the docket, the parties, the issue and the lower court, with no transcript yet.
Every call this term, justice by justice · how the model is built and its record. Data as of 2026-10-29.