The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit heard arguments in *Sherice Sargent v. School District of Philadelphia*, a federal class action lawsuit challenging Philadelphia's selective high school admissions policies on Equal Protection grounds. The case, filed as case number 24-3112, involves three parents appealing a district court's summary judgment that rejected their constitutional challenge to the School District's 2022 Admissions Policy.
The plaintiffs include Sherice Sargent, Michele Sheridan, and Joshua Meyer, who filed suit individually and as next friends of their minor children, seeking to represent a class of similarly situated families. Originally, four parents initiated the lawsuit, with Fallon Girini also named as a plaintiff in the original complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
The lawsuit targets multiple defendants within the Philadelphia school system, including the School District of Philadelphia itself, the Superintendent, and the Board of Education. Individual board members named in the suit include Joyce Wilkerson, Leticia Egea Hinton, Julia Danzy, Mallory Fix Lopez, Maria McColgan, Lisa Salley, Reginald Streater, and Cecilia Thompson, all sued in their official capacities. The complaint also names Sabriya Jubilee, the district's Director of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, and Karyn Lynch, Chief of Student Support Services.
The case centers on the district's 2022 Admissions Policy for four selective high schools in Philadelphia. While the specific details of the policy are not fully outlined in the available court documents, the challenge appears to focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives implemented by the school district. The parents argue these policies violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
District Judge Chad F. Kenney originally granted summary judgment in favor of the school district, rejecting the parents' Equal Protection claims. Summary judgment is typically granted when there are no genuine disputes of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The parents then appealed this decision to the Third Circuit.
The Third Circuit panel hearing the appeal consists of Circuit Judges Hardiman, Krause, and Freeman. Oral arguments were held on September 9, 2025, with the court issuing its opinion on February 2, 2026. The opinion is designated as precedential, meaning it will serve as binding legal authority for future cases within the Third Circuit's jurisdiction.
In the court's opinion, Circuit Judge Hardiman references the Supreme Court's decision in *Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp.*, a landmark civil rights case that established the framework for analyzing discriminatory intent in Equal Protection challenges. The *Arlington Heights* decision requires plaintiffs to show that a facially neutral policy was motivated by discriminatory purpose, not merely that it has a discriminatory effect.
This case reflects broader national debates over diversity policies in education, particularly following recent Supreme Court decisions affecting affirmative action in college admissions. School districts across the country have faced legal challenges to their diversity and inclusion initiatives, with parents and advocacy groups arguing these policies may violate constitutional equal protection guarantees.
The Philadelphia School District's selective high schools likely use competitive admission processes that consider various factors in student selection. Such schools often serve as pathways to elite colleges and universities, making admission policies particularly contentious among parents seeking educational opportunities for their children.
The class action nature of the lawsuit suggests the parents believe their situation affects numerous other families in similar circumstances. Class action status allows the named plaintiffs to represent a broader group of individuals who share common legal grievances against the defendants.
The involvement of the Director of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion as a named defendant indicates the central role these initiatives play in the challenged policies. Many school districts have created such positions following national conversations about educational equity and racial justice.
The case's precedential designation means the Third Circuit's decision will guide how similar challenges are handled in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, and the Virgin Islands, which comprise the court's jurisdiction. The ruling may influence how other school districts structure their admissions policies and diversity initiatives.
Given the timing of the opinion's release in February 2026, the decision comes as educational institutions continue navigating the evolving legal landscape surrounding diversity policies. The outcome may affect not only Philadelphia's selective schools but also provide guidance for similar institutions facing comparable challenges.
The case represents the ongoing tension between efforts to promote educational diversity and concerns about potential constitutional violations in implementing such policies. As school districts nationwide grapple with these issues, federal court decisions like this one provide important legal precedent for balancing competing interests in public education.