Kadrmas v. Dickinson Public Schools
108 S. Ct. 2481, 487 U.S. 450, 1988 U.S. LEXIS 2878 (1988)
Rule of Law:
The Equal Protection Clause does not forbid a state from allowing some local school boards, but not others, to assess a fee for transporting pupils to public schools, so long as the statute is rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose and does not interfere with a fundamental right or discriminate against a suspect class.
Facts:
- Since 1947, North Dakota has authorized and encouraged sparsely populated school districts to consolidate or "reorganize" into larger districts to improve educational efficiency.
- Reorganization proposals are statutorily required to include provisions for transporting students, and these provisions can only be changed with voter approval.
- Appellee Dickinson Public Schools, a nonreorganized district serving a relatively populous area, provided free bus service to students in outlying areas until 1973.
- In 1973, following a plebiscite, Dickinson’s School Board instituted door-to-door bus service and began charging a fee, which covered approximately 11% of the service's cost.
- In 1979, North Dakota enacted legislation expressly allowing nonreorganized school districts, like Dickinson, to charge a fee for transporting students, provided the fees did not exceed the estimated cost of service.
- Appellant Sarita Kadrmas, a Dickinson schoolchild, and her mother, Paula Kadrmas, lived about 16 miles from Sarita’s school.
- The Kadrmas family’s annual income at the time of trial was at or near the officially defined poverty level, and they had fallen behind on various bills.
- In 1985, the Kadrmas family refused to sign a contract to pay the $97 annual fee for Sarita’s bus service, leading to her being denied bus access and the family incurring private transportation costs exceeding $1,000 that year.
Procedural Posture:
- Appellants Sarita Kadrmas and Paula Kadrmas, along with others, filed an action in a state trial court in North Dakota seeking to enjoin appellees Dickinson Public Schools and various school district officials from collecting any fee for bus service.
- The state trial court dismissed the action on the merits.
- Appellants Sarita Kadrmas and Paula Kadrmas appealed this dismissal to the Supreme Court of North Dakota. Dickinson Public Schools and the school officials were the appellees in this appeal.
- The Supreme Court of North Dakota rejected a state-law challenge and affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the busing fee statute did not discriminate on the basis of wealth or violate federal or state equal protection rights.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state statute that allows nonreorganized school districts to charge a fee for bus transportation, while reorganized districts often provide it for free, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by discriminating against the poor or by creating an arbitrary distinction between district types?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice O’Connor
No. A state statute allowing nonreorganized school districts to charge a fee for bus transportation does not violate the Equal Protection Clause, as education is not a fundamental right, wealth is not a suspect classification, and the statute is rationally related to legitimate state interests. The Court first rejected appellees' procedural arguments, finding that appellants were not estopped from challenging the statute as the fee was a burden, and the ongoing nature of the controversy (Sarita's age and younger siblings) prevented mootness. Applying well-established equal protection principles, the Court held that unless a statute interferes with a "fundamental right" or discriminates against a "suspect class," it is reviewed under the rational relation test. The Court reiterated that wealth is not a suspect classification, and education is not a fundamental right triggering strict scrutiny, citing San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. Rodriguez and Harris v. McRae. It distinguished Plyler v. Doe, noting Sarita was not penalized for illegal conduct by her parents, and the fee did not promote a subclass of illiterates, especially given North Dakota's waiver provision for inability to pay. Cases like Griffin v. Illinois, which involved indigent litigants being barred from the exclusive judicial process, were found inapposite because North Dakota does not maintain a monopoly on pupil transportation, and the Kadrmas family found a private (though more expensive) alternative. The Court concluded that allowing local school boards the option of charging a user fee for bus service is constitutionally permissible under rational basis review. Encouraging local school districts to provide bus service is a legitimate state purpose, and allowing fees avoids undermining this objective by requiring general revenues to subsidize an optional service benefiting a minority of families. Regarding the distinction between reorganized and nonreorganized districts, the Court found it rationally justified. The legislature could have conceivably believed that such a policy would serve the legitimate purpose of fulfilling the reasonable expectations of those residing in districts with free busing arrangements imposed by reorganization plans. Since this purpose would not apply to nonreorganized districts, the legislature could rationally conclude they should have the option of imposing user fees. Thus, the distinction reflects voluntary agreements from the reorganization process and serves a legitimate state interest in promoting reorganization.
Dissenting - Justice Marshall
Yes. A state statute allowing nonreorganized school districts to charge a nonwaivable fee for bus transportation, thereby discriminating against indigent families seeking access to education, violates the Equal Protection Clause. Justice Marshall argued that the Court's approach overlooks "sophisticated as well as simpleminded modes of discrimination." For children living far from school, a transportation fee is a practical equivalent to an education fee. He emphasized that the fee discriminated against Sarita's family due to their indigence, falling more heavily on the poor. While wealth is not a suspect classification, classifications based on wealth have "special constitutional significance," especially when interfering with access to governmental institutions that offer opportunities for advancement. The intent of the Fourteenth Amendment was to abolish caste legislation. Education is "perhaps the most important function of state and local governments" (Brown v. Board of Education), and a law that erects obstacles to education for the poor tends to create a permanent underclass. Plyler v. Doe was highly relevant, as its reasoning concerned differential treatment of a disadvantaged group of children with respect to education, posing an "affront to one of the goals of the Equal Protection Clause: the abolition of governmental barriers presenting unreasonable obstacles to advancement on the basis of individual merit." The state's fiscal rationale for the fee was insubstantial, as fees covered only 11% of costs, and exempting indigent families would require minimal adjustment. Most other districts provided free service. This decision, he concluded, "demonstrates once again a 'callous indifference to the realities of life for the poor.'"
Dissenting - Justice Stevens
Yes. A state statute that allows nonreorganized districts to charge fees for bus service while reorganized districts generally provide it for free lacks a rational basis under the Equal Protection Clause once the voters in a district have had a fair opportunity to decide on reorganization. Justice Stevens concurred with Justice Marshall's accurate explication of the harm to the disadvantaged class. He noted that the North Dakota Supreme Court unequivocally identified the actual purpose of the geographic discrimination: "to encourage school district reorganization... by alleviating parental concerns regarding the cost of student transportation in the reorganized district." This explanation, he argued, makes two propositions clear: (1) free bus transportation is an important component of public education in a sparsely populated state, and (2) after voters have had a fair opportunity to decide on reorganization, there is no longer any justification for allowing nonreorganized districts to place an obstacle (the fee) in the paths of poor children seeking education that has been removed in other parts of the state. He concluded that the state supreme court's explanation of the purpose lacks the "elements of legitimacy and neutrality that must always characterize the performance of the sovereign’s duty to govern impartially."
Analysis:
This case reinforces the Supreme Court's consistent stance that education is not a fundamental right and poverty is not a suspect classification for equal protection purposes, thereby almost always subjecting state laws impacting these areas to rational basis review. It clarifies the limits of Plyler v. Doe and distinguishes cases involving exclusive access to the judicial system by emphasizing the availability of alternatives, however costly. The decision broadly permits states to implement policies that impose costs for optional public services, even if those costs disproportionately affect the poor, so long as a rational legislative purpose can be articulated.
