Sign up for Chalkbeat Newark’s free newsletter to get the latest news about the city’s public school system delivered to your inbox.
This story was first published by the New Jersey Monitor.
The New Jersey Supreme Court has declined to fast-track an eight-year-old lawsuit that alleges the state’s schools are unconstitutionally segregated by race, deciding that the case must first be heard by an appellate court before the high court can get involved.
Latino Action Network, a plaintiff in the case, had asked for the Supreme Court to step in “so that justice will not further be delayed — and thereby denied,” but court officials announced Monday that the justices decided not to weigh in yet. Lawrence Lustberg, attorney for Latino Action Network, said the plaintiffs are disappointed “given that it is such an important case and that any delay hurts New Jersey’s children.”
“We will continue our pursuit of justice in the Appellate Division, and are confident in the merits of our case,” Lustberg said.
Latino Action Network and the other plaintiffs — a group of parents and advocacy groups — filed the lawsuit against the state in May 2018. They claim that the state’s public school system is segregated along racial and socioeconomic lines, which violates the New Jersey Constitution requirement that students receive a “thorough and efficient education.”
In New Jersey, students typically attend schools in the districts where they live, which the plaintiffs argue has led to de facto segregation. They cite a University of California at Los Angeles study that found New Jersey has consistently ranked as one of the most segregated school systems in the nation.
The case has slowly wound through the court system. In October 2023, a trial court judge agreed with plaintiffs that there was a “marked and persistent racial imbalance” in New Jersey schools but said the plaintiffs failed to prove the state’s school system as a whole is unconstitutionally segregated.
The parties then entered a mediation process, which ran from late 2023 to early 2025 and failed to lead to any agreement or settlement.
Last year, an appellate court agreed to hear the plaintiffs’ case but a hearing has yet to be scheduled.
The Sherrill administration opposed the plaintiffs’ move to ask the Supreme Court to step in, saying they have “so far failed to present any administrable, constitutional remedy.”
