{"id":2716,"date":"2026-06-23T11:24:43","date_gmt":"2026-06-23T15:24:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/?page_id=2716"},"modified":"2026-06-23T11:24:43","modified_gmt":"2026-06-23T15:24:43","slug":"end-arlington-heights","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/in-print\/volume-23-issue-1-winter-2025\/end-arlington-heights\/","title":{"rendered":"End Arlington Heights"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Legislative motive is back in court, but it shouldn\u2019t last. In <em>Coalition for TJ v. Fairfax County School Board<\/em>, the Fourth Circuit upheld a facially race-neutral admissions policy to a competitive public magnet school in an Arlington Heights challenge despite extensive evidence of the School Board\u2019s racially dis-criminatory motive and the policy\u2019s disparate racial impact. The opinions in <em>TJ<\/em> mark the first bout in the next phase of litigation after <em>Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard<\/em>. This Article examines how the <em>TJ<\/em> decision exemplifies the irredeemable workability issues attendant to judicial examination of legisla-tive motive under <em>Arlington Heights<\/em>, details the aberration from legal history and principle that the <em>Arlington Heights<\/em> regime represents, and argues why, both normatively and legally, <em>Arlington Heights<\/em> should be abandoned.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/23\/2026\/06\/23.1-Fraley.pdf\">Continue reading End Arlington Heights<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Legislative motive is back in court, but it shouldn\u2019t last. In Coalition for TJ v. Fairfax County School Board, the Fourth Circuit upheld a facially race-neutral admissions policy to a [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":28,"featured_media":0,"parent":2686,"menu_order":7,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"abstract.php","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_price":"","_stock":"","_tribe_ticket_header":"","_tribe_default_ticket_provider":"","_tribe_ticket_capacity":"0","_ticket_start_date":"","_ticket_end_date":"","_tribe_ticket_show_description":"","_tribe_ticket_show_not_going":false,"_tribe_ticket_use_global_stock":"","_tribe_ticket_global_stock_level":"","_global_stock_mode":"","_global_stock_cap":"","_tribe_rsvp_for_event":"","_tribe_ticket_going_count":"","_tribe_ticket_not_going_count":"","_tribe_tickets_list":"[]","_tribe_ticket_has_attendee_info_fields":false,"footnotes":"","_tec_slr_enabled":"","_tec_slr_layout":""},"class_list":["post-2716","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"ticketed":false,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2716","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/28"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2716"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2716\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2718,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2716\/revisions\/2718"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2686"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2716"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}