"Gary B. v. Snyder," a federal class action lawsuit originally filed in September 2016, is one of the most recent and high-profile entrants into the line of cases involving large-scale education reform. In this case, seven students from traditional public schools and charter schools in Detroit sued various Michigan state officials, arguing that the U.S. Constitution includes a fundamental right of access to literacy and that the state had denied them this right. Although the federal trial court in Detroit that initially heard the case found that students were not denied their right of access to literacy by the state, the plaintiffs appealed the case, and it is now being considered in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Given the difficulties that have historically emerged with court-driven education reform, we examine the opportunities and challenges inherent in "Gary B." to provide insight into the prospects of "Gary B." and similar cases to effectively promote educational improvement. Grounded in this examination, we also present an argument for the utility of a new model for education litigation. We specifically argue that courts acting as agenda setters and working in concert with stakeholders to tailor reform to ground-level conditions is a model that is highly compatible with contemporary education research on effective models of systemic improvement. A court-mandated agenda for educational improvement must be structured in a way that engages stakeholder groups in implementation efforts precisely because improvement naturally involves dynamic, contextual conditions that cannot be completely accounted for in advance.