## Facts

- North Dakota encouraged consolidation (“reorganization”) of small school districts; reorganized districts had transportation obligations and limits on charging transportation fees without voter approval.
- Dickinson Public Schools did not reorganize and in 1973 began offering door-to-door bus service funded partly by user fees.
- A 1979 state statute authorized non-reorganized districts to charge school bus fees not exceeding estimated service costs.
- Dickinson charged about $97 annually for one child and $150 for two children; roughly 13% of students used busing.
- Paula Kadrmas lived about 16 miles from her daughter Sarita’s school and had income at or near the poverty level.
- After previously signing transportation contracts and paying fees, Kadrmas refused to sign a new contract in 1985; the district stopped busing Sarita, and the family incurred over $1,000 annually to transport her privately.
- Kadrmas and other parents sued in state court to stop collection of bus fees; the trial court dismissed, and the state supreme court affirmed, treating the statute as economic legislation rationally related to allocating limited resources.
- While review was pending, the family signed later bus contracts and made partial payments.

## Issues

1. Whether the case was moot or barred because the family signed bus contracts and partially paid fees while challenging the statute.
2. Whether authorizing and charging a school bus fee violated equal protection by discriminating based on wealth or denying minimum access to education.
3. Whether allowing only non-reorganized districts (and not reorganized districts) to charge bus fees without voter approval violated equal protection.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court held the case was not moot and appellants were not estopped; invalidation could relieve them of remaining payments and future assessments authorized by the statute.
- The Court affirmed the state judgment, holding the statute and the district’s fee policy did not violate the Equal Protection Clause.
- The Court applied rational basis review because no fundamental right or suspect classification was implicated.
- The distinction between reorganized and non-reorganized districts was rationally related to legitimate state interests, including resource allocation and reorganization policy.

## Legal Principles

- There is no fundamental constitutional right to free public school transportation; a state may choose to provide transportation and may allow reasonable user fees.
- Wealth is not a suspect classification for equal protection purposes in this setting; disparate impact on low-income families does not trigger heightened scrutiny absent denial of basic access to schooling.
- Economic and social welfare measures are upheld if rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose.
- A controversy is not moot when a favorable decision can affect ongoing payment obligations or prevent future assessments under challenged authority.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld North Dakota’s authorization for non-reorganized districts to charge cost-based school bus fees, concluding that transportation fees involve no fundamental right, do not create unconstitutional wealth discrimination on this record, and satisfy rational basis review, while also finding the dispute remained justiciable despite later bus contracts.


Kadrmas v. Dickinson Pub. Schs., 487 U.S. 450 (1988)