The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed a district court ruling in favor of the Montgomery County Board of Education in a case brought by the Association for Education Fairness, according to an unpublished per curiam opinion filed February 3, 2026.
The three-judge panel, consisting of Circuit Judges Richardson and Heytens, along with Senior Circuit Judge Floyd, upheld the lower court's decision in *Association for Education Fairness v. Montgomery County Board of Education* (4th Cir. 2026). The case originated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland at Greenbelt, where Judge Paula Xinis presided over the initial proceedings.
The Association for Education Fairness served as the plaintiff-appellant in the case, challenging the Montgomery County Board of Education and Dr. Monique Felder, the interim superintendent, who were named as defendants-appellees. The lawsuit was originally filed in 2020, as indicated by the district court case number 8:20-cv-02540-PX.
The appeal attracted significant attention from civil rights organizations, with five groups filing amicus briefs supporting the school district. The amici supporting the appellees included the Asian American Youth Leadership Empowerment and Development, CASA Inc., the Montgomery County Branch of the NAACP, Identity Inc., and the Montgomery County Progressive Asian American Network.
Representing the Association for Education Fairness were attorneys from the Pacific Legal Foundation, including Joshua P. Thompson, Christopher M. Kieser, and Erin E. Wilcox from the organization's Sacramento office, along with Glenn E. Roper from the Highlands Ranch, Colorado office. The Pacific Legal Foundation is known for pursuing litigation on behalf of conservative causes, particularly in education and civil rights matters.
The Montgomery County Board of Education was represented by a team from Hogan Lovells US LLP, including Jo-Ann Tamila Sagar and Nathaniel A.G. Zelinsky from the firm's Washington, D.C. office, and Steven F. Barley from the Baltimore office.
The amicus brief supporting the school district was filed by an extensive legal team representing multiple civil rights organizations. The brief was prepared by attorneys from Ballard Spahr LLP, including Leslie E. John and Travis J. Watson from Philadelphia, Maraya N. Pratt from Baltimore, and Steven L. Becton II from Wilmington, Delaware.
Additional counsel for the amici included Niyati Shah and Shalaka Phadnis from Asian Americans Advancing Justice-AAJC in Washington, D.C., and Francisca D. Fajana from LatinoJustice PRLDEF in New York. The NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund was represented by Michaele N. Turnage Young, Jin Hee Lee, Michael Skocpol, and Allison Scharfstein from offices in Washington, D.C. and New York.
The case was submitted to the Fourth Circuit on October 31, 2025, and the court issued its decision approximately three months later on February 3, 2026. The relatively quick turnaround suggests the panel found the legal issues straightforward based on existing precedent and the lower court record.
While the specific legal claims and underlying facts of the dispute are not detailed in the available court documents, the involvement of multiple civil rights organizations as amici supporting the school district suggests the case likely involved educational policies or practices that these groups viewed as promoting equity and inclusion.
The Fourth Circuit's decision was issued as an unpublished per curiam opinion, meaning it was unanimous and relatively brief. Unpublished opinions do not establish binding precedent within the Fourth Circuit, though they may be cited for their persuasive value. The per curiam format typically indicates that the court viewed the legal issues as settled or that the appeal lacked merit sufficient to warrant a published opinion.
Montgomery County Public Schools is one of the largest school districts in Maryland, serving over 160,000 students. The district has been involved in various education policy debates in recent years, particularly around issues of equity, admissions to specialized programs, and resource allocation.
The Association for Education Fairness, the plaintiff organization, appears to have been challenging some aspect of the school district's policies or practices, though the specific nature of their claims is not evident from the appellate record. The organization's use of Pacific Legal Foundation attorneys suggests the case involved constitutional or civil rights issues that aligned with that firm's litigation priorities.
The affirmance by the Fourth Circuit means that whatever relief the Association for Education Fairness sought in their original lawsuit was denied, and the lower court's judgment in favor of the school district stands. The plaintiff organization could potentially seek review by the Supreme Court through a petition for certiorari, though such petitions are granted in only a small percentage of cases.
This decision represents another instance where federal courts have been asked to weigh in on education policy disputes at the local level, reflecting ongoing tensions over various approaches to promoting educational equity and opportunity.