In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
____________________
No. 18‐1673
ST. JOAN ANTIDA HIGH SCHOOL INC.,
Plaintiff‐Appellant,
v.
MILWAUKEE PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Defendant‐Appellee.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin.
No. 2:17‐cv‐00413‐JPS — J.P. Stadtmueller, Judge.
____________________
ARGUED SEPTEMBER 18, 2018 — DECIDED MARCH 25, 2019
____________________
Before SYKES, BARRETT, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.
ST. EVE, Circuit Judge. There have been several constitu‐
tional challenges to school busing in Wisconsin over the years.
See, e.g., St. Augustine Sch. v. Evers, 906 F.3d 591 (7th Cir. 2018);
Racine Charter One, Inc. v. Racine Unified Sch. Dist., 424 F.3d 677
(7th Cir. 2005). This is another. Our focus here is on the Mil‐
waukee Public School District (“MPS”), private schools, and
the Equal Protection Clause.
2 No. 18‐1673
MPS offers free transportation to public‐school students
who attend certain schools outside of their neighborhoods.
All other students—including private‐school students—are
only eligible if they live farther than one mile from the nearest
public‐transportation stop. MPS also requires private schools
to submit a roster of students who need transportation by
July 1; it has no such requirement for its public schools. St.
Joan Antida High School, a private school, filed this lawsuit,
claiming that these restrictions violate the Equal Protection
Clause. This is especially so, St. Joan submits, because state
law requires MPS to transport students with “reasonable uni‐
formity,” whether they attend public or private schools.
The district court granted summary judgment to MPS, and
St. Joan appeals. We affirm in part and reverse and remand in
part. Rational bases exist for the differences in busing eligibil‐
ity, and so we affirm on that ground. But more work needs to
be done to resolve St. Joan’s challenge to the July 1 deadline,
and so we reverse and remand on that ground.
I. Background
Busing parochial schoolchildren with public funding used
to be considered unconstitutional in Wisconsin. See State ex
rel. Reynolds v. Nusbaum, 115 N.W.2d 761, 770 (Wis. 1962). In
1967, however, the state held a referendum, which asked vot‐
ers whether Wisconsin’s constitution should be amended to
permit state‐funded transportation of private and parochial
students. The voters decided it should, and the Wisconsin
constitution was amended. Wis. Const. art. I, § 23; see also
Cartwright v. Sharpe, 162 N.W.2d 5, 8 (1968).
After the amendment, Wisconsin passed enabling legisla‐
tion that requires school districts to provide transportation for
No. 18‐1673 3
both public‐ and private‐school students. See Wis. Stat.
§ 121.54. There are exceptions, though. The most notable (for
our purposes) is the exception for a school district operating
within a metropolitan area. Under § 121.54’s “city option,” a
school district in a city need not—but can decide to—provide
transportation if other public transportation is generally
available to schoolchildren. Id. § 121.54(1). Should a school
district exercise the city option, there must “be reasonable uni‐
formity in the transportation furnished to pupils, whether they
attend public or private schools.” Id. § 121.54(1)(b) (emphasis
added).
MPS has exercised the city option, and it therefore offers
transportation to Milwaukee‐area schools. There are two pri‐
mary types of public schools in the MPS system: (1) citywide
schools, which offer special courses, like language‐immersion
classes or International Baccalaureate® programs, and draw
from the entire Milwaukee area; and (2) attendance‐area
schools, which generally do not have such programs and
draw only from a particular neighborhood. MPS, at times,
designates certain students to attendance‐area schools out‐
side of their neighborhoods—making the school a “nonat‐
tendance‐area school” (as we will call it, for ease of reference).
The Milwaukee area, of course, also has private schools, like
St. Joan. MPS explains that, under state rules, St. Joan techni‐
cally has an attendance area; but unlike public attendance‐
area schools, St. Joan’s allotted area is the entire city of Mil‐
waukee.
To ensure transportation to these schools, MPS devised
Policy 4.04. This lawsuit challenges two parts of that policy.
The first challenge concerns how MPS decides which stu‐
dents are eligible for busing. Under § 2 of Policy 4.04, high
4 No. 18‐1673
schoolers may receive free transportation only if they live two
or more miles from their school and “more than one mile
walking distance from public transportation” (a restriction
we will call the “one‐mile rule”).1 But § 5 provides more gen‐
erous transportation benefits for high schoolers who attend
either citywide or nonattendance‐area schools. That section,
which is titled “Racial Balance, Modernization, Overload, and
Lack of Facility,” makes any student assigned to a school far‐
ther than two miles from her home eligible for free transpor‐
tation—regardless of the student’s proximity to public trans‐
portation. In fewer words, citywide and nonattendance‐area
students are not subject to the one‐mile rule under § 5.
The second challenge is to MPS’s roster‐notification dead‐
line. Under § 121.54(2)(b), private schools must submit the
names, grade levels, and residences of all students who are
eligible to receive busing to MPS by May 15. The provision
allows a school board to “extend the notification deadline,”
which MPS has done. Policy 4.04 states that private schools
must submit the roster by the third Friday in September. In
practice, however, the parties agree that MPS requires the ros‐
ters by July 1. According to MPS, the deadline is necessary so
that it has sufficient time to arrange for the transportation of
eligible private‐school students before school starts. There is
no like roster‐notification deadline for public schools, MPS
says, because it has immediate access to the requisite infor‐
mation needed for eligible public‐school students.
In 2016, St. Joan applied to MPS for student transportation
during the upcoming 2016–2017 school year. On May 14, 2016,
1
Policy 4.04 provides different transportation terms for elementary
schools. Those terms are not relevant to this dispute.
No. 18‐1673 5
St. Joan submitted its original roster, which included the
names of sixty‐two students relevant to this appeal; on Sep‐
tember 29, 2016, it updated the list with six more relevant
names. What prompted St. Joan to update its roster is unclear,
but MPS refused to bus any of these sixty‐eight students. Each
of them lived within one mile of public transportation, and
the six later‐added students were disclosed after the July 1
deadline. St. Joan protested, but eventually covered transpor‐
tation for the students. Doing so cost a total of $178,640 for the
2016–2017 and 2017–2018 school years.
Looking to recover that loss, St. Joan brought this action,
which also seeks injunctive and declaratory relief. St. Joan as‐
serts two claims. The first claim alleges that Policy 4.04’s two
restrictions—the one‐mile rule and the July 1 deadline—vio‐
late the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amend‐
ment. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The second claim, brought under
Wis. Stat. § 121.54, asserts that the restrictions violate Wiscon‐
sin’s reasonable uniformity requirement.2 After discovery, the
parties cross‐moved for summary judgment. The district
court granted MPS’s motion and denied St. Joan’s, reasoning
that Policy 4.04’s two restrictions had rational bases. 293 F.
Supp. 3d 813 (E.D. Wis. 2018). With the constitutional claim
2
St. Joan sued on its own behalf and on behalf of the sixty‐eight children’s
parents, from whom St. Joan received assignments of rights and claims.
The exemplar assignment in the record speaks only of a “full and complete
assignment of rights and claims under Wis. Stat. §§ 121.54 and 121.55”—
it does not address assignment of § 1983 claims. The parties do not address
this issue. It does not deter us, though, because the law generally holds
that schools have standing to assert the constitutional rights of parents to
direct their children’s education. See Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U.S. 160, 175
n.13 (1976); Pierce v. Soc’y of the Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535–36 (1925); Ohio
Ass’n of Indep. Sch. v. Goff, 92 F.3d 419, 422 (6th Cir. 1996).
6 No. 18‐1673
dismissed, the district court declined to exercise supple‐
mental jurisdiction over St. Joan’s state‐law claim. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1367(c)(3). St. Joan appeals.
II. Discussion
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amend‐
ment guarantees that “no State shall … deny to any person
within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” U.S.
Const. amend. XIV, § 1. This is “essentially a direction that all
persons similarly situated should be treated alike.” City of
Cleburne, Tex. v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985).
Although the Equal Protection Clause does not endow a pri‐
vate right of action, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 does for any constitu‐
tional deprivation under color of state law. A municipal entity
acting under color of state law—like MPS—may be held liable
under § 1983 where it is responsible for the constitutional
deprivation. Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of New York,
436 U.S. 658, 694–695 (1978).
On appeal, St. Joan contends that the one‐mile rule and the
July 1 deadline violate the Equal Protection Clause. We first
determine how searching our inquiry must be—under either
strict‐scrutiny or rational‐basis review—before determining
whether the restrictions pass constitutional muster. Because
this case comes to us after summary judgment, our review is
de novo. Dunn v. Menard, Inc., 880 F.3d 899, 905 (7th Cir. 2018).
We can affirm on any ground supported by the record. Terry
v. Gary Cmty. Sch. Corp., 910 F.3d 1000, 1004 (7th Cir. 2018).
A. Standard of Scrutiny
An equal‐protection claim merits strict scrutiny, our most
exacting inquiry, only if the state‐crafted classification disad‐
vantages a suspect class or “impermissibly interferes” with a
No. 18‐1673 7
fundamental right. Segovia v. United States, 880 F.3d 384, 390
(7th Cir. 2018). Otherwise rational‐basis review governs.3 See
Armour v. City of Indianapolis, Ind., 566 U.S. 673, 680 (2012);
Hooper v. Bernalillo Cty. Assessor, 472 U.S. 612, 618 (1985). This
case does not involve a suspect class, like race, and neither
education nor free transportation to school is a fundamental
right. Kadrmas v. Dickinson Pub. Sch., 487 U.S. 450, 457–62
(1988); Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 223 (1982); San Antonio Indep.
Sch. Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 33–35 (1973); Racine Charter
One, Inc. v. Racine Unified Sch. Dist., 424 F.3d 677, 690 n.4 (7th
Cir. 2005).
St. Joan, however, invokes another fundamental right—
the right of parents to direct the education of their children.
That right does exist. In Pierce v. Soc’y of the Sisters, the Su‐
preme Court struck down a ban on parochial education and
held that the “fundamental theory of liberty” protects parents
from state attempts to “forc[e]” students into public school‐
ing. 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925); see also Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S.
57, 65 (2000). But the existence of that fundamental right, and
its potential implication here, is not enough to trigger strict
scrutiny. See, e.g., Harlan v. Scholz, 866 F.3d 754, 760 (7th Cir.
2017). A direct and substantial interference is required. See
Lyng v. Castillo, 477 U.S. 635, 638 (1986); Bowen v. Gilliard, 483
U.S. 587, 602–03 (1987); Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 386–
87 & n.12 (1978); see also Griffin High Sch. v. Illinois High Sch.
Ass’n, 822 F.2d 671 (7th Cir. 1987). St. Joan has shown no such
interference with the right recognized in Pierce.
3
We set aside intermediate scrutiny, which generally applies to classifica‐
tions based on quasi‐suspect classes, like gender, because it has no poten‐
tial application to this case. See, e.g., Hayden ex rel. A.H. v. Greensburg Cmty.
Sch. Corp., 743 F.3d 569, 577 (7th Cir. 2014).
8 No. 18‐1673
St. Joan claims that the withholding of free busing, a
state‐subsidized benefit, amounts to a prohibited interference
with the right to direct a child’s education. This stretches
Pierce too far. As a general rule, a state’s “decision not to sub‐
sidize the exercise of a fundamental right does not infringe
the right” and is therefore “not subject to strict scrutiny.” Re‐
gan v. Taxation with Representation of Washington, 461 U.S. 540,
549 (1983); see also, e.g., Sweeney v. Pence, 767 F.3d 654, 669 (7th
Cir. 2014). More to the point, a state that chooses not to assist
a private school does not breach the right Pierce described. In
Norwood v. Harrison, the Supreme Court explained:
It has never been held that if private schools are not
given some share of public funds allocated for edu‐
cation that such schools are isolated into a classifica‐
tion violative of the Equal Protection Clause. It is one
thing to say that a State may not prohibit the mainte‐
nance of private schools and quite another to say
that such schools must, as a matter of equal protec‐
tion, receive state aid.
413 U.S 455, 462 (1973). In Maher v. Roe, the Court added that
Pierce “casts no shadow over a State’s power to favor public
education by funding it.” 432 U.S. 464, 477 (1977); see also Cor‐
nerstone Christian Sch. v. Univ. Interscholastic League, 563 F.3d
127, 138 n.12 (5th Cir. 2009); Gary S. v. Manchester Sch. Dist.,
374 F.3d 15, 19–22 (1st Cir. 2004); Cass R. Sunstein, Is There an
Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine?, 26 San Diego L. Rev.
337, 340–42 (1989). Pierce, then, does not protect against a state
favoring public schools with public dollars, which is—at
worst—all MPS has done.
St. Joan’s reach for strict scrutiny stretches the record, too.
There is no evidence that Policy 4.04 hamstrings the right of
parents to direct their children’s education. Parents can and
No. 18‐1673 9
do choose to send their children to Milwaukee private
schools, despite Policy 4.04. Parents who cannot rely upon
private transportation have other options available. All sixty‐
eight children live within one mile of public transportation
(hence this lawsuit), and St. Joan in fact provided the students
with busing. To be sure, the record contains testimonial evi‐
dence that some unenumerated number of families declined
to send their children to St. Joan because it could not promise
free busing. But that Policy 4.04 caused some families to “de‐
cide to modify” where they sent their children “does not
transform” the policy into an intrusion on parental rights.
Bowen, 483 U.S. at 601–02 & n.16; accord Califano v. Jobst, 434
U.S. 47, 54 (1977). The burden must be direct and substantial,
and no evidence shows that.
St. Joan also makes much of the fact that Wisconsin con‐
siders free transportation for private‐school students to be
“important,” as evidenced by the 1967 constitutional amend‐
ment and § 121.54. This emphasis is misplaced. State‐specific
policies do not augment fundamental rights. Accord Washing‐
ton v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 720–21 (1997) (only rights that
are “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition”
count as fundamental) (citation omitted). Wisconsin law has
implications on whether there are rational bases for Policy
4.04’s restrictions (as we discuss below), but not whether strict
scrutiny applies.
With strict scrutiny off the table, rational‐basis review gov‐
erns St. Joan’s challenges to the one‐mile rule and the July 1
deadline. That standard permits a court to invalidate a legis‐
lative classification only if there is no rational relationship be‐
tween the classification and “some legitimate government
purpose.” Segovia, 880 F.3d at 390. “Some” is key—a
10 No. 18‐1673
classification is generally valid as long as a rational basis is
plausible, even if the legislature did not expressly endorse it.
See FCC v. Beach Commc’ns, Inc., 508 U.S. 307, 313–15 (1993);
Indiana Petroleum Marketers & Convenience Store Ass’n v. Cook,
808 F.3d 318, 322 (7th Cir. 2015). Rational‐basis review toler‐
ates overinclusive classifications, underinclusive ones, and
other imperfect means‐ends fits. Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312,
319–320 (1993); Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 473 (1991);
Vance v. Bradley, 440 U.S. 93, 107–09 (1979). The standard also
imputes “a strong presumption of validity” on the contested
classification. Beach Commc’ns, 508 U.S. at 314–15. To over‐
come that presumption, a challenger must negate “every con‐
ceivable basis which might support” the classification. Id.
B. The One‐Mile Rule
Policy 4.04 draws a line. On one side are private schools,
like St. Joan, and attendance‐area schools, both of which are
subject to the one‐mile rule; on the other side are citywide and
nonattendance‐area schools, which are not. St. Joan argues
that this line‐drawing violates equal protection, at least as ap‐
plied to it, because the one‐mile rule irrationally treats private
schools differently.
Equal‐protection claims start with the question: treated
differently than whom? See Erwin Chemerinsky,
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES § 9.1, 698 (5th
ed. 2015). In cases like this, where the challenged regulation
provides explicit classifications, the answer should be easy.
Driving laws may treat fifteen‐year‐olds differently than six‐
teen‐year‐olds. Liquor laws may treat saloons differently than
grocery stores. And so on. The parties, however, muddle the
answer here. MPS submits that St. Joan is technically an at‐
tendance‐area school, because it has an allotted attendance
No. 18‐1673 11
area under state regulations. Thus, MPS contends, St. Joan is
treated differently only when compared to dissimilar schools;
but it is treated the same as its relevant comparator—attend‐
ance‐area schools. St. Joan vehemently disagrees, arguing that
it must be compared to citywide schools. St. Joan has an at‐
tendance area, the school concedes, but that attendance area
is the entire city—just like citywide schools.
The debate is unnecessary. Arguments over whether there
is an apt “similarly situated” comparator are suited for class‐
of‐one equal‐protection cases, in which the individual claim‐
ant must show that she was treated differently (and irration‐
ally so) than someone else. See, e.g., Harvey v. Town of Merrill‐
ville, 649 F.3d 526, 532 (7th Cir. 2011). But where, as here, “the
classification appears in the text of” the challenged regulation,
we do not “need to identify a comparator.” Monarch Beverage
Co. v. Cook, 861 F.3d 678, 682 (7th Cir. 2017). The regulation
that imposes the burden does the work for us.
Here, Policy 4.04 treats private schools, like St. Joan, dif‐
ferently than citywide schools and nonattendance‐area
schools—and that requires a rational basis. St. Joan submits
that there is no rationale for the different treatment, especially
in light of § 121.54’s reasonable uniformity requirement. MPS
responds with two rational bases: (1) furthering its educa‐
tional mandate by reducing overcapacity and expanding ac‐
cess to special programs; and (2) cost savings. We will address
whether those justifications suffice on their own terms, then
consider the impact of § 121.54.
MPS, a public‐school district, has obvious legitimate inter‐
ests in reducing overcapacity in crowded attendance‐area
schools and in expanding special program access to its stu‐
dents. See Lewis v. Ascension Par. Sch. Bd., 806 F.3d 344, 363 (5th
12 No. 18‐1673
Cir. 2015); Spurlock v. Fox, 716 F.3d 383, 403 (6th Cir. 2013); Doe
ex rel. Doe v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 665 F.3d 524, 557 (3d Cir.
2011). Either goal requires the same feat—to put more kids in
citywide and nonattendance‐area classrooms. To that end, ex‐
empting students who attend those schools from the one‐mile
rule means more kids will get busing to those schools, which
in turn encourages and makes easier their attendance to those
schools. That is rational.
There is a related reason for limiting the one‐mile rule’s
application. MPS students who attend citywide or nonattend‐
ance‐area schools are, logically, more likely to have to travel
farther from their home to get to school than students who go
to attendance‐area schools. That beckons a trade‐off. In ex‐
change for MPS students traveling farther, MPS makes the
travel easier by ensuring free busing for most students.
Faced with these rational bases, St. Joan reframes the issue.
It posits, and the district court concluded, that the question is
not whether MPS had a rational basis for exempting citywide
and nonattendance‐area students from the one‐mile rule (the
district court accepted that it did). The question, St. Joan says,
is whether there is a rational basis for not extending the same
benefit to private‐school students. St. Joan sees an upside to
the latter formulation, believing it requires MPS to identify
something undeserving about private‐school students to jus‐
tify denying them the busing benefits some public‐school stu‐
dents receive. But that is not how rational‐basis review works.
The standard, like most in constitutional law, is a means‐
end test. See G. Stone et al., CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 453 (7th ed.
2013). We need only identify a legitimate end and ask whether
the means—the classification—bears a rational relationship to
the end. E.g., Armour, 566 U.S. at 680; Beach Commc’ns, 508 U.S.
No. 18‐1673 13
at 315–20. So if, for example, a state is concerned with the suc‐
cess of its small‐business sector, and, in response, it passes a
regulation offering more generous grant terms to companies
with fewer than fifty employees, the regulation is rationally
related to the state’s legitimate concern. The analysis ends
there. See U.S. R.R. Ret. Bd. v. Fritz, 449 U.S. 166, 176–79 (1980).
On rational‐basis review, we do not additionally require the
state to persuade us why a company with, say, two‐hundred
employees would not also benefit from more grant money. Cf.
Rothe Dev., Inc. v. U.S. Depʹt of Def., 836 F.3d 57, 73 (D.C. Cir.
2016) (deeming rational a grant program for socially disad‐
vantaged businesses). Lawmakers often have to draw lines
when “classifying governmental beneficiaries,” and some‐
times that means those with “strong claim[s] to favored treat‐
ment” will be left out. Beach Commc’ns, 508 U.S. at 315–16; see
also, e.g., Fitzgerald v. Racing Assʹn of Cent. Iowa, 539 U.S. 103,
108 (2003); Regan, 461 U.S. at 550–51; Maher, 432 U.S. at 477;
City of New Orleans v. Dukes, 427 U.S. 297, 303–06 (1976) (per
curiam); Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U.S. 471, 486 (1970) (per
curiam).
That is what happened here. MPS has legitimate interests
in reducing overcrowding and expanding educational access
in MPS schools. With those goals in mind, MPS eased trans‐
portation to and from the schools that can help it do both. Eas‐
ing transportation for private‐school (and attendance‐area)
students, on the other hand, would do little to further MPS’s
goals. And that distinction gives MPS reason enough to treat
the schools differently under rational‐basis review. See, e.g.,
Idaho Dep’t of Employment v. Smith, 434 U.S. 100, 101 (1977) (per
curiam).
14 No. 18‐1673
St. Joan attacks the rationality of MPS’s application of the
one‐mile rule on other grounds. It asserts that overcrowding
is not truly a problem in MPS schools, because many attend‐
ance‐area schools are not at maximum capacity. St. Joan ar‐
gues further that MPS has no reason to differentiate St. Joan
from citywide schools because St. Joan also offers special pro‐
gramming. These arguments may have held water if St. Joan
had a strict‐scrutiny case. But it does not. On rational‐basis
review, classifications can be both underinclusive and overin‐
clusive and still survive. E.g., Wisconsin Educ. Ass’n Council v.
Walker, 705 F.3d 640, 655–56 (7th Cir. 2013). MPS, moreover,
does not need conclusive support from “evidence or empiri‐
cal data” to make the rational decisions it has. Beach
Commc’ns, 508 U.S. at 313–15.
Turning to MPS’s second justification, cost savings may
serve as a rational basis for classifications. See Bankers Life &
Cas. Co. v. Crenshaw, 486 U.S. 71, 83–84 (1988); Bowen, 483 U.S.
at 599; Srail v. Vill. of Lisle, Ill., 588 F.3d 940, 948 (7th Cir. 2009);
Irizarry v. Bd. of Educ. of City of Chicago, 251 F.3d 604, 610 (7th
Cir. 2001). The cases that so hold generally identify potential
costs that are unique or distinct to the disfavored group. See
Bankers Life, 486 U.S. at 83–84 (charging assessments on non‐
monetary judgments “would impose a considerable cost in ju‐
dicial resources”); Irizarry, 251 F.3d at 610 (excluding unmar‐
ried persons from dependent benefits resulted in “distinct”
savings). In another busing case, for example, we concluded
that a school district had a rational basis for not transporting
a charter school’s students, because doing so would have re‐
sulted in “unique and additional costs” to the school district.
Racine Charter One, 424 F.3d at 685–87. That is not to say that
states can randomly discriminate to keep costs down. If the
state’s cutoff is arbitrary or invidious, then the classification
No. 18‐1673 15
is by definition not rational. See Mem’l Hosp. v. Maricopa Cty.,
415 U.S. 250, 263 (1974); Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 633
(1969), overruled on other grounds by Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S.
651 (1974).
Cost savings, in the context of MPS’s other goals, provide
an additional rational basis here. It may well be true, as St.
Joan asserts, that a St. Joan student is no more expensive to
bus than a citywide or nonattendance‐area student. But MPS
is already stretched thin; it spent forty‐million dollars to pro‐
vide busing in the 2016–2017 school year, barely any of which
state aid covered. Despite those straits, MPS could believe that
overcrowding and access concerns were worth taking on the
added cost of busing most citywide and nonattendance‐area
students. It has no similar reason to take on those costs for
private and attendance‐area students. So MPS made the ra‐
tional choice: pay more to expand busing to schools that could
reduce overcrowding and promote program access, but not to
schools that are less likely provide the same returns. See
Bowen, 483 U.S. at 596; Idaho Dep’t of Employment, 434 U.S. at
101.
The one‐mile rule therefore has rational bases. But how
does § 121.54’s reasonable uniformity requirement factor in?
Courts typically ask whether a rational basis is conceivable,
without paying mind to what the state actually said or
thought. Monarch Beverage, 861 F.3d at 685. St. Joan, however,
argues that this case is different, because § 121.54 precludes
MPS from relying on the rational bases that it has.
St. Joan’s argument derives from Allegheny Pittsburgh Coal
Co. v. Cty. Comm’n of Webster Cty., W. Va., 488 U.S. 336 (1989).
In Allegheny, the Supreme Court considered a county’s prop‐
erty‐tax assessment scheme that “systematically produced
16 No. 18‐1673
dramatic differences in valuation”—in some cases assessing
property at more than thirty times the rate of comparable
properties. Allegheny, 488 U.S. at 341. The county defended
the scheme by arguing that it aimed to peg “properties at true
current value.” But that goal, the Court held, could not ration‐
ally explain the gross disparities in tax treatment. Id. at 343–
44. Nor could state law. The Court recognized that states can
make rational distinctions among taxpayers and assess differ‐
ent tax burdens, but the state had “not drawn such a distinc‐
tion.” Id. at 345. To the contrary, West Virginia’s constitution
mandated that “taxation shall be equal and uniform throughout
the State.” Id. at 338 (emphasis added). The Court therefore
saw no conceivable rational bases for the scheme. Id. at 345–
46.
Allegheny’s holding is quite narrow. Three years after Alle‐
gheny came Nordlinger v. Hahn, another equal‐protection chal‐
lenge involving property taxes. 505 U.S. 1 (1992). Like the
scheme in Allegheny, the law in Nordlinger “resulted in dra‐
matic disparities in taxation.” Id. at 14. But Allegheny was dis‐
tinguishable, according to the Court. Citing the Allegheny
county’s irrational justification and the state‐law uniformity
directive, the Court concluded that Allegheny “was the rare
case where the facts precluded any plausible inference” of a
rational basis. Id. at 14–16; see also Fitzgerald, 539 U.S. at 109–
10; Chemerinsky, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 718 (after Nordlinger,
Allegheny “seems limited to challenges of arbitrary and unjus‐
tifiable administrative decisions”). Two decades after Nord‐
linger, the Court again emphasized Allegheny’s limits in Ar‐
mour.
In Armour, the Supreme Court evaluated how Indianapo‐
lis divvied up the costs of a new sewer project among local
No. 18‐1673 17
homeowners. Indiana law required that such costs be “appor‐
tioned equally.” Ind. Code § 36‐9‐39‐15(b)(3) (2011). Indian‐
apolis did so, at least at first, by assessing each homeowner
the same rate. After the assessment, some paid in lump sums
and others began paying in installments. The city soon re‐
versed course, though, and opted to use bonds to pay for the
project. It then forgave any outstanding installments owed,
but it refused to pay back homeowners who had paid in a
lump sum. Armour, 566 U.S. at 678–79. The result: homeown‐
ers who paid upfront spent as much as thirty times more than
other homeowners. See id. at 679.
Despite the parallels—a state uniformity law and gross
disparity—the Court in Armour held that Allegheny did not
control. Id. at 687. Allegheny, the Court explained, “involved a
clear state law requirement clearly and dramatically violated.”
Id. (emphases added). Not so in Armour, according to the
Court, because the city followed state law in the first instance,
and state law said nothing about forgiveness plans. The Court
went no further on the state‐law question, rejecting the view
that “ordinary violations of ordinary state tax law” can
amount to “violations of the Federal Constitution.” Id. at 687–
88. The Court repeated that Allegheny was the “‘the rare case
where the facts precluded’ any alternative reading of state law
and thus any alternative rational basis.” Id. at 687 (quoting
Nordlinger, 505 U.S. at 16).
This is not one of those rare cases. MPS’s avowed rational
bases are sound, and § 121.54 does not render them implausi‐
ble. For one, § 121.54’s reasonable uniformity requirement is
not “clear.” See Armour, 566 U.S. at 687. It is the opposite—
“ambiguous”—as St. John Vianney Sch. v. Bd. of Educ. of Sch.
Dist. of Janesville held. 336 N.W.2d 387, 393 (Wis. Ct. App.
18 No. 18‐1673
1983). There is also little caselaw explaining the requirement.
St. John Vianney, for its part, noted that the requirement pre‐
vents discrimination based on how far students live from
school. Id. at 393–94; see also Wis. Stat. § 121.54(2)(c), (4) (dis‐
cussing reasonable uniformity in terms of the distances trans‐
ported to and from school). That, however, does not move
much here, because the one‐mile rule does not discriminate
on a distance‐from‐school basis. What is more, absent “clear”
law, we do not see what MPS “clearly and dramatically” vio‐
lated. See Armour, 566 U.S. at 687. It is true that the one‐mile
rule effectively denies busing to most of the St. Joan students
who applied for it. But we decline to speak for the Wisconsin
courts as to whether that result is “reasonable” as a matter of
local busing policy. MPS is financially strained as it is, and the
rule does apply uniformly to private and attendance‐area stu‐
dents.4
Of course, none of this means that the one‐mile rule com‐
plies with § 121.54. That question is not before us, and the an‐
swer, unsettled as it is, should come from the Wisconsin
courts. To resolve the equal‐protection claim before us, we
hold only that MPS has offered rational bases that are plausi‐
ble notwithstanding state law.
In coming out the other way, the dissent goes further than
we are willing. It draws on legislative history and potentially
4
We said earlier that we do not need to determine, for equal‐protection
purposes, what types of schools St. Joan is most like (citywide or nonat‐
tendance area, who generally get busing, or attendance‐area schools, who
generally do not). At the same time, we have no basis to say what practical
and regulatory distinctions will matter to the Wisconsin courts for § 121.54
purposes.
No. 18‐1673 19
comparable lower‐court decisions (like St. John Vianney) to
conclude that the one‐mile rule violates § 121.54 clearly
enough to implicate Allegheny and negate MPS’s rational ba‐
ses. With respect, we think that approach does more than
what Allegheny and Armour did. For even if the one‐mile rule
violates § 121.54,5 a mere violation of state law does not boot‐
strap itself into a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Ar‐
mour, 566 U.S. at 687–88; see also William C. Cohen, State Law
in Equality Clothing: A Comment on Allegheny Pittsburgh Coal
Company v. County Commission, 38 UCLA L. Rev. 87, 99–103
(1990).
C. The July 1 Deadline
MPS additionally requires private schools to provide by
July 1 the names of students who need busing. This deadline
applies only to private‐school students, not MPS students,
and thus St. Joan claims that it also violates equal protection.
In response, MPS proffers one rational basis in support of the
deadline: administrative necessity.
There is no question that administrative concerns can jus‐
tify certain classifications. E.g., Armour, 566 U.S. at 683; Bank‐
ers Life, 486 U.S. at 84; Hearne v. Bd. of Educ. of City of Chicago,
185 F.3d 770, 775 (7th Cir. 1999). Such concerns exist here.
5
It is worth adding that in Allegheny, unlike here, the state courts at least
had an opportunity to decide whether the challenged scheme violated
state law. West Virginia’s highest court assumed that it did, but the court
refused to order relief because it concluded that absent “intentional and
systemic” undervaluation the petitioners had to seek relief from the asses‐
sor. Allegheny, 488 U.S. at 342–43 (citing In re 1975 Tax Assessments Against
Oneida Coal Co., 360 S.E.2d 560, 565 (W.Va. 1987)); see also John Hart Ely,
Another Spin on Allegheny Pittsburgh, 38 UCLA L. Rev. 107, 109 (1990) (ex‐
plaining the “strange” circumstances of Allegheny).
20 No. 18‐1673
Before school starts, MPS must determine which students are
eligible for transportation, compare school rosters to confirm
that students are not double booked, and arrange for bus ser‐
vices or contract for alternative transportation services. See
Wis. Stat. § 121.55. These tasks all require MPS to have the stu‐
dents’ information well in advance of the school year. While
MPS has direct access to its own students’ information, it does
not have the same for private‐school students. As a result,
some deadline by which private schools must provide student
information is logistically rational—and statutorily mandated
by Wis. Stat. § 121.54(2)(b). Whether July 1, as opposed to, say,
September 1, is the wisest or fairest choice is not for us to de‐
cide. See, e.g., Heller, 509 U.S. at 319–320; Nordlinger, 505 U.S.
at 18; Hodel v. Indiana, 452 U.S. 314, 331 (1981).
That is sufficient to deem the deadline constitutional on its
face.6 See Midwest Fence Corp. v. U.S. Dep’t of Transp., 840 F.3d
932, 941–46 (7th Cir. 2016); see also United States v. Salerno, 481
U.S. 739, 745 (1987). St. Joan, however, also lobs a related chal‐
lenge to what comes after the deadline. According to St. Joan,
MPS treats students who enroll near or after July 1 differently
depending on their school. To illustrate, St. Joan offers a hy‐
pothetical. Suppose MPS completes transportation arrange‐
ments for all schools (public and private) by August 15. A
week later, two families, each with a fourteen‐year‐old, move
to Milwaukee. One family decides to send its child to a private
6
We use the term “on its face” advisedly, although we note that the July 1
deadline has not been recorded anywhere (at least as far as this record is
concerned). That is odd, particularly because the July 1 deadline conflicts
with the September deadline set forth in Policy 4.04 and the May 15 dead‐
line in Wis. Stat. § 121.54(2)(b). St. Joan, however, has not argued that these
facts impact the constitutional analysis, and so we do not address them.
No. 18‐1673 21
school outside of her neighborhood; the other opts for a pub‐
lic school outside of her neighborhood. And then MPS learns
of the two students, and their need for busing, on the exact
same day. The private‐school student cannot get busing; yet
the public‐school student could, according to St. Joan.
That prospect gives us pause. The time needed to arrange
for transportation before the school year justifies imposing a
roster‐notification deadline on private schools. But pre‐ar‐
rangement needs offer no justification for treating post‐ar‐
rangement latecomers differently. Granted, some rigidity in
the deadline may be rational (to motivate private schools to
comply with the it); but even that would not justify treating
students who move to the district near or after the deadline
differently, based only on whether they go to private or public
school. We see no rational basis for that distinction, and MPS
has not provided any. Perhaps there are heightened burdens
associated with latecomer private‐school students that do not
exist for public‐school students, but again, MPS has not
pointed to any.
That said, we cannot order relief on this record. Unlike the
dissent, at least two things remain unclear to us. First, we do
not know whether, in fact, MPS enforces the July 1 deadline
in the manner just described. At oral argument, counsel for
MPS hedged when asked directly; and the parties have not
directed us to a part of the record that reveals a clear answer.
Second, we do not know why St. Joan updated its roster after
the July 1 deadline—whether the result of latecomers, pro‐
crastination, or something else. These facts matter, of course,
because an as‐applied challenge concerns only the present
case, not hypotheticals. See, e.g., Hegwood v. City of Eau Claire,
676 F.3d 600, 603 (7th Cir. 2012); United States v. Skoien, 614
22 No. 18‐1673
F.3d 638, 645 (7th Cir. 2010) (en banc). We therefore conclude
that further fact‐finding is necessary. See, e.g., Shimer v. Wash‐
ington, 100 F.3d 506, 510 (7th Cir. 1996). After that occurs, it is
up to the district court in the first instance to decide what re‐
lief, if any, is appropriate.
III. Conclusion
For these reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s judg‐
ment with respect to the one‐mile rule and we REVERSE and
REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opin‐
ion with respect to the July 1 deadline.
No. 18-1673 23
SYKES, Circuit Judge, dissenting. I respectfully dissent. Un-
like my colleagues, I think this is indeed the “rare case” in
which a state-law uniformity mandate removes otherwise
plausible policy justifications for a local legislative classifica-
tion, leaving no rational basis for the local rule. Nordlinger v.
Hahn, 505 U.S. 1, 16 (1992) (describing Allegheny Pittsburgh
Coal Co. v. Cty. Comm’n of Webster Cty., W. Va., 488 U.S. 336
(1989)). I would reverse and remand for entry of judgment
for the plaintiff.
* * *
To understand this unusual equal-protection claim, it’s
helpful to review the relevant state legal history. In 1962 the
Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the state constitution
prohibited the expenditure of public funds to transport
children to parochial and private schools. State ex rel.
Reynolds v. Nusbaum, 115 N.W.2d 761, 769–70 (Wis. 1962).
Wisconsin voters responded by amending the constitution.
In 1967 they added this language: “Transportation of school
children. Nothing in this constitution shall prohibit the
legislature from providing for the safety and welfare of
children by providing for the transportation of children to
and from any parochial or private school or institution of
learning.” WIS. CONST. art. I, § 23.
Acting on this new constitutional authority, the
Wisconsin legislature immediately “elect[ed] to provide for
the transportation of children to any parochial or private
school by amending the existing statutes … to provide for
transportation for students attending private or parochial
schools and public schools upon a reasonably uniform basis.”
Cartwright v. Sharpe, 162 N.W.2d 5, 8 (Wis. 1968) (emphasis
added). The enabling legislation included an explicit state-
24 No. 18-1673
ment of statutory purpose: “The intent of this act is to pro-
vide for the safety and welfare of children by providing for
their transportation to and from public and private schools.”
Ch. 68, § 1, 1967 Wis. Sess. Laws 144.
To that end, the legislature amended the school-
transportation statutes to require “every school board” to
provide transportation to and from public and private
schools for all students who reside in the district and live
“2 miles or more” from their school. WIS. STAT. § 121.54(2)(a),
(b) (mandating public and private school transportation on
these terms). So school districts have a statutory duty to
provide free transportation to and from school for all resi-
dent children who live two miles or more from their school,
whether public or private.
School districts may of course provide more generous
transportation service. The statutory scheme recognizes that
school boards may elect to transport “all or some of the
pupils” who reside in the district and live less than two miles
from their school. Id. § 121.54(2)(c). If they choose to do so,
however, they may not use different distance standards for
public and private school students: “If transportation is
provided for less than all such pupils[,] there shall be rea-
sonable uniformity in the minimum distance that pupils
attending public and private schools will be transported.” Id.
The uniformity requirement is repeated in the subsection
governing transportation to summer classes. School districts
are permitted (but not required) to bus children to summer
school, but “[i]f the school board provides transportation for
less than all pupils, there shall be reasonable uniformity in
the minimum and maximum distances pupils are transport-
ed.” Id. § 121.54(4).
No. 18-1673 25
Finally, and most relevant here, the transportation man-
date excludes children who live in cities served by public
transit systems. Id. § 121.54(1)(c). Under the so-called “city
option,” school districts in cities with public transit service
are not required to provide free student transportation. If
they choose to do so, however, “there shall be reasonable
uniformity in the transportation furnished to the pupils,
whether they attend public or private schools.” Id.
§ 121.54(1)(b). In this way the “city option,” like the other
transportation provisions, requires equal treatment of public
and private school students.
The 1967 legislation soon spawned litigation. In a key
early case interpreting the new statutory scheme, the
Wisconsin Supreme Court explained that “[t]he important
change” ushered in by the constitutional amendment and
enabling legislation “was to provide that where transporta-
tion is furnished, either mandatory or permissive, it must be
on a reasonably uniform basis to children attending either
public or private schools.” Cartwright, 162 N.W.2d at 10–11.
Put slightly differently, “[w]hat the constitutional amend-
ment and enabling legislation accomplished was to provide
that the same consideration of safety and welfare should
apply to public and private students alike.” Id. at 11.
* * *
The Milwaukee Public School District (“MPS” or “the
District”) qualifies for the city option. The District serves
children in the City of Milwaukee, where public bus service
(operated by the Milwaukee County Transit System) is
available. MPS has chosen to provide free transportation
service to some resident children and thus is bound by the
26 No. 18-1673
statutory obligation to treat public and private school stu-
dents alike.
MPS Administrative Policy 4.04 contains the District’s
transportation regulations. Two features of the policy are at
issue here. The first concerns the distance standards for
determining eligibility for free transportation. The policy
draws no distinction between public and private elementary-
school students. Tracking the statutory mandate for noncity
schools, MPS provides free transportation for public and
private school students in grades K–8 who live “two miles or
more” from their school. ADMINISTRATIVE POLICIES OF THE
MILWAUKEE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, POLICY 4.04(2)(a)1., (b)1.
(Nov. 12, 2014).
The eligibility rules are different for students in grades 9–
12. MPS conditions free transportation service for high-
school students on the two-mile rule plus an additional
distance requirement. The District will transport only those
high-school students who live “two miles or more” from
their school and “more than one mile walking distance from
public transportation.” Id. 4.04(2)(a)3., (b)2. So families of
high-school students who live within one mile of a public
transit stop must pay their own transportation costs.
But MPS lifts this second condition for students who
attend citywide public high schools or public high schools
outside their neighborhood attendance area. Id. 4.04(5)(a)2.,
(b)2. In other words, students who attend public citywide
high schools and live two miles or more from school get free
transportation from the District regardless of their proximity
to public transportation; their counterparts in private
citywide high schools do not. The latter are ineligible for free
No. 18-1673 27
transportation unless they live more than one mile from a
public transit stop.
Students at private schools are disadvantaged in another
way. Milwaukee children who attend private schools (re-
gardless of grade level) cannot receive transportation from
MPS unless the private school “submits the names, grade
levels, and location of eligible students no later than the
third Friday of September.” Id. 4.04(2)(b)4. As my colleagues
explain, in practice MPS requires private schools to submit
their transportation rosters by July 1. Students who enroll
after that date—whether later in the summer or after the
school year has begun—are ineligible to receive transporta-
tion service from MPS for that school year. The roster re-
quirement and July 1 cutoff date apply only to private
schools. Late and mid-year enrollees in the District’s own
schools are not denied free transportation.
* * *
St. Joan Antida High School challenges these disparate
transportation rules on behalf of itself and its students.
St. Joan Antida is a private, all-girls high school in the City of
Milwaukee with a citywide attendance area. That is, its
students come from all over Milwaukee, not just the imme-
diate neighborhood, so they are similarly situated in all
material respects to students in public citywide high schools.
Yet MPS treats them unequally for purposes of transporta-
tion eligibility. They are denied free transportation if they
live within one mile of a public transportation stop. MPS
does not apply this extra distance requirement to their
counterparts at public citywide high schools. This difference
in treatment, the school argues, violates the Fourteenth
Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. St. Joan Antida also
28 No. 18-1673
challenges the July 1 roster deadline, which operates as a
cutoff date to receive transportation service but applies only
to students in private schools.
My colleagues conclude that the challenged rules do not
burden a fundamental right and thus do not trigger strict
scrutiny under prevailing equal-protection doctrine. I agree
and have nothing to add to the analysis in Section IIA of the
majority opinion. The challenged rules need only be ration-
ally related to a legitimate governmental interest. This is a
highly deferential standard. As the majority explains, under
rational-basis review, (1) the challenged law enjoys a pre-
sumption of validity; (2) the government’s actual reasons for
adopting it do not matter; and (3) the fit between the gov-
ernment’s means and its ends can be both hypothetical and
very loose. In short, as long as some legitimate governmental
purpose is conceivably in play and the law might rationally
be thought to serve that purpose, the test is satisfied. It’s
almost impossible to flunk this lenient standard.
Even so, there is a legal baseline below which local laws
may not fall and still be thought minimally rational for
equal-protection purposes. If state law places persons in the
same class and directs local governments to treat everyone in
the class uniformly, local governments cannot discriminate
on the very terms forbidden by state law and expect to
survive rational-basis review. The Supreme Court explained
and applied this principle in Allegheny. There the Court
reviewed a tax-assessment method used by a West Virginia
county that assessed property based on its purchase price
when last sold and adjusted stale data on an ad hoc and
sporadic basis to account for the passage of time. Allegheny,
488 U.S. at 338. In practice this assessment method produced
No. 18-1673 29
“gross disparities in the assessed value of generally compa-
rable property.” Id. State law, however, mandated that
“taxation shall be equal and uniform throughout the State,
and all property, both real and personal, shall be taxed in
proportion to its value.” Id. (quoting W. VA. CONST. art. X,
§ 1). Affected property owners sued, claiming that the
county’s assessment method violated their rights under the
Equal Protection Clause.
The county maintained that its assessment method was a
rational way to measure “true current value” because it used
actual sale prices plus periodic adjustments “[a]s those data
grow stale.” Id. at 343. The Court disagreed, though it did
“not intend to cast doubt upon the theoretical basis of such a
scheme.” Id. “That two methods are used to assess property
in the same class is, without more, of no constitutional
moment. The Equal Protection Clause ‘applies only to
taxation which in fact bears unequally on persons or proper-
ty of the same class.’” Id. (quoting Charleston Fed. Savings &
Loan Ass’n v. Alderson, 324 U.S. 182, 190 (1945) (collecting
cases)). The factual predicate was easily established in
Allegheny: “Petitioners’ property has been assessed at rough-
ly 8 to 35 times more than comparable neighborhood proper-
ty, and these discrepancies have continued for more than
10 years with little change.” Id. at 344.
The Court continued: “The States, of course, have broad
powers to impose and collect taxes … [and] may divide
different kinds of property into classes and assign to each
class a different tax burden so long as those divisions and
burdens are reasonable.” Id. “But West Virginia has not
drawn such a distinction. Its Constitution and laws provide
that all property of the kind held by petitioners shall be
30 No. 18-1673
taxed at a rate uniform throughout the State according to its
estimated market value.” Id. at 345. State law required
reasonable uniformity, but the county’s assessment scheme
“systematically produced dramatic differences in valuation”
for similarly situated properties. Id. at 341. Because the
valuation method consistently produced results that trans-
gressed the state-law uniformity norm, it was not rationally
related to a legitimate governmental purpose. Id. at 343–45.
That is, state law negated any conceivable rational basis for
the local discriminatory practice. The Court found an equal-
protection violation. Id. at 346.
As my colleagues observe, the Court later described
Allegheny as “‘the rare case where the facts precluded’ any
alternative reading of state law and thus any alternative
rational basis” for the challenged local practice or rule.
Armour v. City of Indianapolis, 566 U.S. 673, 687 (2012) (quot-
ing Nordlinger, 505 U.S. at 16). In Armour homeowners sued
the City of Indianapolis after it changed its method of fund-
ing sewer projects. Indiana law required that “costs [for
sewer improvements] be primarily apportioned equally
among all abutting lands or lots.” IND. CODE § 36-9-39-
15(b)(3) (2011). Indianapolis did just that, though it gave
homeowners the option to pay the special assessment all at
once or in installments. Armour, 566 U.S. at 676–77. The City
later abandoned that method in favor of a system that
primarily relied on citywide bonds, spreading the cost across
the entire municipal tax base. With this shift in policy, the
City forgave any unpaid installments but did not refund
homeowners who had already finished paying. Id. at 678–79.
The Court held that the case did not implicate Allegheny.
The statute required Indianapolis to apportion costs
No. 18-1673 31
equally—which the City plainly had done—but state law
said nothing about later forgiveness. The Court explained:
“[T]he City followed state law by apportioning the cost of its
[sewer] projects equally. State law says nothing about for-
giveness, how to design a forgiveness program, or whether
or when rational distinctions in doing so are permitted.” Id.
at 687. That distinguished Armour from Allegheny. The Court
characterized Allegheny as a “rare case” because it “involved
a clear state law requirement clearly and dramatically violat-
ed.” Id.
Unlike my colleagues, I do not read this last sentence as
materially changing Allegheny’s fundamental holding. True,
the Court in Allegheny said that the county’s assessment
method produced “dramatic differences in valuation,” but
that statement was descriptive, not doctrinal. If Armour truly
limits Allegheny to local rules or practices that “dramatically”
depart from state law, we’d need some standard to distin-
guish “dramatic” departures from those that are not. But
Armour did not elaborate. On this point at least, I hesitate to
read this passage from Armour as a doctrinal limitation on
Allegheny.
Perhaps it’s fair to read Armour as limiting Allegheny’s
holding to clear violations of clear state uniformity man-
dates. If so, we have that here. As I’ve explained, the school-
transportation statutes say—again and again—that school
districts must treat public and private school students
reasonably equally when it comes to access to publicly
funded transportation. Districts operating under the city
option need not provide free school transportation to any
resident children, but if they provide it to some, then the law
requires “reasonable uniformity in the transportation fur-
32 No. 18-1673
nished to the pupils, whether they attend public or private
schools.” § 121.54(1)(b).
Put another way, if the city option were not in play, MPS
would have a plain statutory duty to transport all students
who live two miles or more from their school, whether
public or private. § 121.54(2). But because public transit is
readily available in Milwaukee, MPS may (1) provide no
busing at all or (2) provide busing on equal terms to public
and private school students. § 121.54(1)(b). MPS has chosen a
third way. It provides transportation for students in public
citywide high schools who satisfy the two-mile rule but not
their counterparts in private citywide high schools. It has
invoked the city option on discriminatory terms expressly
forbidden by the statute. That’s an irrational policy choice as
a matter of law.
It’s true, as my colleagues point out, that § 121.54(1)(b)
has not been the subject of much appellate litigation in the
state courts. The Wisconsin Supreme Court has not had
occasion to address its scope. In one case the state court of
appeals concluded that the term “reasonable uniformity” in
§ 121.54(1)(b) is ambiguous. St. John Vianney Sch. v. Bd. of
Educ. of Sch. Dist. of Janesville, 336 N.W.2d 387, 393 (Wis. Ct.
App. 1983). The precise question in St. John Vianney was
whether the uniformity mandate in § 121.54(1)(b) requires
school districts to provide the same mode of transportation to
public and private school students. More particularly, the
plaintiffs argued that if the district provided so-called “yel-
low school bus” service for students in public schools, then it
had to provide “yellow school bus” service for students in
private schools. Id. at 388–89. The court rejected that argu-
ment. Reading § 121.54(1)(b) in the context of the statutory
No. 18-1673 33
scheme as a whole, the court noted that the school-
transportation code gives school boards the discretion to use
any of five different modes of transportation to comply with
their statutory obligations. See WIS. STAT. § 121.55. The court
said: “It would be unreasonable to conclude that the ‘rea-
sonable uniformity’ requirement of sec. 121.54(1) abrogates
the board’s option to provide transportation by any of the
methods expressly permitted under sec. 121.55.” St. John
Vianney, 336 N.W.2d at 393.
That was enough to decide the case, but the opinion con-
tinues with some extensive dicta. The court went on to
observe that “[t]he overall concern behind the school trans-
portation statutes is the safety and welfare of pupils.” Id.
Recognizing that “many factors affect … safety and welfare,”
the court deduced from the broader statutory scheme that
“[t]he distance a child lives from school is … the principal
factor with which the statutes are concerned.” Id. Acknowl-
edging that § 121.54(1)(b) “is silent regarding a distance
standard in connection with the reasonable uniformity
requirement,” the court read the statute to “prevent[] a
school board from distinguishing for transportation purpos-
es between public and private school pupils on the basis of
the distance they live from school.” Id. at 394. On this under-
standing, the court said that “whatever … distance standard
the board chooses, the distance standard must be reasonably
uniform in its application to public and private school
pupils.” Id.
The actual holding in St. John Vianney is limited. The
court held only that the uniformity mandate in § 121.54(1)(b)
does not require school districts to use identical modes of
transportation for public and private school students. The
34 No. 18-1673
court’s extended discussion goes further, suggesting that
whatever else the term “reasonable uniformity” may entail,
at a minimum it prevents school districts from using differ-
ent distance-from-school standards for public and private
school students to determine their eligibility for free trans-
portation. MPS’s one-mile rule is a materially similar dis-
tance standard; high-school students who live within one
mile of a public transit stop are ineligible for free transporta-
tion to school. But the rule is discriminatory on its face: it
applies only to students at private citywide high schools;
students at public citywide high schools get free transporta-
tion regardless of their proximity to public transit. On the
reasoning of St. John Vianney, the statutory uniformity
mandate forbids precisely this kind of discrimination by local
school districts in the provision of free school transportation.
A case decided four years before St. John Vianney sheds
even more light on the scope and operation of the uniformity
requirement. In Hahner v. Board of Education, a school district
provided busing on almost uniform terms to public and
private schools. The problem was that it routinely refused to
bus students to certain Catholic schools that held classes
during a week when other schools in the district (public and
private) had spring break. 278 N.W.2d 474, 475–76 (Wis. Ct.
App. 1979). As a result, a small number of students attend-
ing Catholic schools did not receive busing for the entirety of
their school year.
Addressing the “reasonable uniformity doctrine” in the
school-transportation code, 1 the court held that the district
1 Hahner does not specifically mention § 121.54(1)(b), but it relies on
authorities that do. Hahner v. Bd. of Educ., 278 N.W.2d 474, 478–80 (Wis.
No. 18-1673 35
did not have the discretion to deny transportation to
Catholic school students when their schools were in session
but the public schools were not. Id. at 478, 479–80. The
opinion is significant for what it tells us about the dimen-
sions of the reasonable-uniformity requirement: even a one-
week denial of transportation to private school students is
impermissible, as are deviations from the uniformity norm
unrelated to student safety and welfare. Here is the key
passage:
The crucial question is whether a school
board’s discretion in coordinating the schedul-
ing of the transportation of pupils to public
and private schools extends to not transporting
pupils to private schools during a week when
the public schools are closed for vacation. …
[T]he purpose of coordinating these transpor-
tation activities is “to insure the safety and wel-
fare of the pupils” as provided in sec. 121.56,
Stats. This court believes the objective of this
requirement is to prevent discriminatory
treatment of pupils attending private schools in
the transportation provided them. The fact that
the school district would save money by not trans-
porting private school pupils during a week when
the public schools are closed for vacation is a factor
which bears no relationship to the safety and welfare
of the pupils being transported to public schools.
Id. at 479 (emphasis added).
Ct. App. 1979) (citing Cartwright v. Sharpe, 162 N.W.2d 5, 10–11 (Wis.
1968), and 61 Wis. Op. Att’y Gen. 240, 241 (1972)).
36 No. 18-1673
Together, St. John Vianney and Hahner make clear that
MPS’s discriminatory one-mile rule violates the statutory
requirement of reasonable uniformity in the provision of free
transportation to public and private school students. The
challenged rule is unequal on its face and cannot be justified
by reference to student safety and welfare, which are the
only legitimate public-policy interests recognized by state
law as justifications for school-transportation distinctions
between public and private school students. Simply put,
state law forbids MPS from making a policy choice to allo-
cate free transportation on these unequal terms.
MPS defends its discriminatory one-mile rule based on
abstract goals of avoiding overcapacity in its neighborhood
schools, expanding access to special programming, and
saving money. My colleagues accept these justifications as
rational reasons for discriminating against private school
students. With respect, state law leaves no room for these
possible policy justifications. The state legislature has de-
creed a public policy of reasonably uniform treatment of
public and private school students when it comes to free
school transportation. School districts may not have different
eligibility rules for public and private school students (ex-
cept perhaps for safety and welfare reasons). Under clear
state law, discriminating between public and private school
students is not an available means to achieve other policy
goals. Put somewhat differently, a local rule that defies the
state-law uniformity command serves no legitimate govern-
mental purpose. Like the county tax-assessment method in
No. 18-1673 37
Allegheny, the MPS rule violates the Equal Protection
Clause. 2
In reaching this conclusion, I do not purport to “speak for
the Wisconsin courts” any more than the Supreme Court
purported to “speak for the West Virginia courts” when it
found an equal-protection violation in Allegheny. Majority
Op. at p. 18. My conclusion simply recognizes that the
statutory uniformity mandate removes the plausible policy
justifications for this discriminatory local rule, which classi-
fies students on the precise terms forbidden by statute. 3
2 In Racine Charter One, Inc. v. Racine Unified School District, we accepted a
school district’s “cost” justification as a rational basis for not busing
students to a charter school. 424 F.3d 677, 685–87 (7th Cir. 2005). I
question that holding, which flatly contradicts Hahner. Racine Charter One
held in the alternative that the charter school’s students were not
similarly situated “to those students who do receive the busing benefit.”
Id. at 683. I question that holding as well, but the case is perhaps distin-
guishable from ours on that ground.
3 My colleagues say that I’ve gone too far because my analysis “draws on
legislative history and potentially comparable lower-court decisions (like
St. John Vianney).” Majority Op. at p. 18–19. That misunderstands
Wisconsin’s approach to statutory interpretation and the constitutional
status of the state court of appeals.
Wisconsin has adopted a textualist method of statutory interpreta-
tion that limits the use of legislative history. State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit
Court for Dane Cty., 681 N.W.2d 110, 124–26 (Wis. 2004). But statutory
history is not the same as legislative history. Statutory History, BLACK’S
LAW DICTIONARY (10th ed. 2014) (“The enacted lineage of a statute,
including prior laws, amendments, codifications, and repeals.”); Legisla-
tive History, id. (“The proceedings leading to the enactment of a statute,
including hearings, committee reports, and floor debates.”). Statutory
history provides context for statutory terms and is an accepted part of
Wisconsin’s textualist interpretive method. See County of Dane v. Labor &
38 No. 18-1673
For similar reasons, the District’s enforcement of the
July 1 roster deadline violates the Equal Protection Clause.
As I understand this claim, St. Joan Antida does not object to
a general rule requiring private schools to submit a transpor-
tation roster by a date certain. It challenges the District’s
practice of denying free transportation to students who
enroll after the deadline passes. Late and mid-year enrollees
at public schools do not suffer the same fate. This policy, too,
violates the state-law requirement of reasonable uniformity,
leaving no rational basis for the discriminatory treatment.
My understanding of this claim differs from the majori-
ty’s in another way. St. Joan Antida challenges the enforce-
ment of the roster policy as a general matter. The school
seeks an injunction against the discriminatory denial of
transportation to students who enroll in private school after
Indus. Review Comm’n, 759 N.W.2d 571, 580 (Wis. 2009); Kalal, 681 N.W.2d
at 126. The same is true of statements of purpose contained in the
statutory text. Kalal, 681 N.W.2d at 125. Finally, Wisconsin’s approach to
statutory interpretation reads statutory language “in the context in
which it is used; not in isolation but as part of a whole; in relation to the
language of surrounding or closely-related statutes; and reasonably, to
avoid absurd or unreasonable results.” Id. at 124. Everything I’ve said
here is consistent with Wisconsin law.
Further, the state court of appeals, though divided into four districts,
is a unitary court, and its published opinions are binding statewide
precedent until “overrule[d], modif[ied,] or withdraw[n]” by the state
supreme court. Cook v. Cook, 560 N.W.2d 246, 256 (Wis. 1997). My
analysis draws on a seminal decision of the state supreme court
(Cartwright) and two decisions of the court of appeals (St. John Vianney
and Hahner). All three have binding statewide precedential effect.
No. 18-1673 39
the July 1 deadline. St. Joan Antida also seeks damages; the
monetary remedy is of course keyed to facts peculiar to the
school and its students. But the parties have stipulated to
damages.
My colleagues share some of my concerns about the ra-
tionality of this policy and remand for further clarification
and development of this claim. As I see it, all that remains to
be done on remand is to fashion an appropriate injunctive
remedy and enter judgment granting injunctive and mone-
tary relief. St. Joan Antida has explained that students who
have not yet enrolled in private school by the July 1 deadline
(and thus do not appear on a private school’s roster) are
denied free transportation for the ensuing school year. Late
and mid-year enrollees in the public schools are not. MPS
has not denied that it enforces its July 1 roster policy in this
way. In light of the statutory uniformity mandate, this
discriminatory treatment cannot be justified as rationally
related to a legitimate governmental interest.
For these reasons, I would reverse and remand with in-
structions to enter judgment for St. Joan Antida.