Racine Charter One, Inc. v. Racine Unified School District, No. 05-1003 (7th Cir. Sept. 22, 2005)
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has ruled that a Wisconsin school district did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause when it refused to bus students to an independent charter school located within the school district. Racine Charter One (RCO) is an independent public charter school located within the boundaries of Racine Unified School District (RUSD). Wisconsin law provides for two types of charter schools: (1) those sponsored by local school districts; and (2) those sponsored by other entities explicitly authorized by the state legislature. RCO falls into the second category. State law also requires school districts to transport public, private, and parochial school students who: (1) reside within the district; (2) attend a school within the geographical boundaries of that district; (3) attend a school within their designated attendance area; and (4) either reside two miles or more from that school or would otherwise encounter unusual hazards in walking to and from school. Relying on that law, RCO requested that RUSD provide it bus service. When RUSD denied the request, RCO sued, alleging that RUSD's refusal violated the Equal Protection Clause. The federal district court dismissed the lawsuit on the grounds that: (1) RCO students were not "similarly situated" to those students receiving RUSD bus service; and (2) RUSD had a rational basis for denying bus service to RCO students based the "unique and additional costs" associated with providing such service.
The Seventh Circuit agreed with the district court that RCO's "class of one" equal protection claim should be analyzed under the two-pronged test established in Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562 (2000). Under the first prong of the test, the court rejected RCO's argument that its students were "similarly situated" because they reside and attend school within RUSD's geographical boundaries. Even though RCO exists within these boundaries, because of its status as an independent charter school, RCO is the functional equivalent of an independent school district "surrounded on all sides, though not subsumed by RUSD." Under Wisconsin law, RUSD had no statutory duty to provide transportation to students in another school district, and RCO alone was responsible for transporting its students. The court rejected RCO's attempt to liken itself to private or parochial schools within RUSD's boundaries that have the option of contracting for transportation on their own or relying on RUSD. While it may be unclear what type of public school RCO is, it is not a private or parochial school, the court determined. The court noted that the Wisconsin legislature had twice unsuccessfully attempted to enact legislation that would have provided busing to independent charter schools like RCO, which indicated that even the legislature did not believe that it has conferred the busing benefit on charter schools. Turning to the second prong of the test, the court first discussed whether that prong requires "class of one" plaintiffs to show only that the government has no rational basis for its action or to satisfy the more stringent standard of demonstrating that the action also is motivated by illegitimate animus. Without deciding which standard should be imposed, the court held that RCO failed to meet the second prong under either standard. RCO had failed even to allege, much less demonstrate, that any subjective ill will motivated RUSD's decision. Just as RCO's status as a functional equivalent of an independent school district had satisfied the first prong of the test, it also served as a rational basis for RUSD to refuse to provide bus service. The court concluded that RUSD had presented sufficient evidence of financial burden to justify its denial.
Racine Charter One, Inc. v. Racine Unified School District, No. 05-1003 (7th Cir. Sept. 22, 2005)
[Link to full opinion]