Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-school district’s motion for summary judgment in plaintiff-private school’s action alleging that defendant’s policy providing that it would only bus plaintiff’s students to plaintiff’s school if said children lived more than one mile from nearest public transportation stop, while providing busing for public school students who attended citywide schools or non-attendance area schools violated equal protection clause. Dist. Ct. could properly apply rational-basis test to instant lawsuit and find that defendant satisfied said test, where policy addressed defendant’s legitimate interest in reducing overcapacity in crowded public school attendance-area schools and in expanding special program access to its students, and where easing transportation for private school students would do little to further defendant’s goals. Also, defendant could use cost savings argument to justify policy. Dist. Ct. erred, though, in granting defendant’s summary judgment motion with respect to defendant’s requirement that private schools submit by July 1, list of students needing busing services, since, although such requirement is constitutional on its face, remand was required for determination as to whether there were heightened burdens associated with private school students who enrolled after July 1 deadline that did not exist for similar late-enrolling public-school students. (Dissent filed.)
Federal 7th Circuit Court
Civil Court
Equal Protection