Kadrmas v. Dickinson Public Schools
United States Supreme Court
487 U.S. 450 (1988)
- Written by Abby Roughton, JD
In North Dakota, small school districts could consolidate into larger districts so that the districts could more efficiently educate students in sparsely populated areas. School districts that chose to consolidate were required to submit reorganization plans that set forth how students would be transported to and from school. Dickinson Public Schools (Dickinson) (defendant) had chosen not to reorganize. Until 1973, Dickinson had provided free bus service to students in outlying areas but had required the students to travel to designated pickup points to board the bus. In 1973, Dickinson began offering door-to-door bus service for an annual fee of $97 for one student or $150 for two students. At that time, roughly 13 percent of Dickinson students rode the bus. In 1979, the North Dakota Legislature enacted a statute allowing non-reorganized school districts to charge a fee for transporting students to school as long as the fee did not exceed the district’s cost of providing the bus service. Sarita Kadrmas (plaintiff) was a Dickinson student who lived roughly 16 miles from her school. Until 1985, the Kadrmases had paid the bus fee for Sarita. However, the Kadrmases had a poverty-level income and became unable to pay the fee as their other bills mounted. Sarita and her mother, Paula (plaintiff) brought an action in North Dakota state court to enjoin Dickinson from collecting bus fees, claiming that the fees violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The trial court dismissed the action, and the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (O’Connor, J.)
Dissent (Marshall, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.