draw distinctions between groups of public and private school students granting transportation benefits to one group and denying it to another it must provide a sufficient rationale for those distinctions under the equal protection clause m p s is unable to do so in this right and you've argued that a parent's right to direct their children's education fundamental right here but what is direct and substantial interference with that right that you've alleged m p s has unilaterally decided that one of the students received busing depends on whether their parents choose a public or private school for their children this is about the safety of students the welfare of students that is taken as directions guarantees the right to direct one of these students actually ended up going to s j and got busted because s to a paid for it that's right so there wasn't any interference with their actually going to the school well we don't say that because somebody could pay a poll tax for example  an interference with their right to vote it's true that so enjoy ninety to offer to pay for transportation for these years but there's no guarantee that it's going to continue to do so and into the future and it's using money that it receive scrutiny again just because s k offered as she certainly had no duty to transport the students so the parents were entitled to transfer to the transportation benefits under state law and s stepped in and said well if you choose private school three students you're not going to be entitled to those that's an obstacle to their enjoyment of the generally available benefits council let alone that we think rational basis why wouldn't it be has a purpose but in practice that's not at all how m p s this policy is operating as we said for every year the transport of hundreds and hundreds of schools who choose to go to the city why schools because they offer special programs many of these indianapolis which is that otherwise a good image purposes may become invalid if they conflict with an overriding state mandate so m p s can offer up as a purpose what we want to incentivize our students if there's an overriding state law that certainty that cost alone is not enough to justify an arbitrary distinctions between similarly situated individuals the cost has to be unique in some way if it were otherwise the government could justify all kinds of discriminatory programs on the basis but we can tell you that a state is more like the city why schools because both provide eligibility for transportation to students living throughout the city of milwaukee they're not like attendance areas schools where there is  discrete area smaller than the city of milwaukee within which students can't can live to qualify for transportation i think to speak briefly about racine charter one since that was the main the universe are there any who they actually do pass not in this year at issue there is a separate part of the policy that deals with an area along usual hazard and i believe in prior years i may have come into violation of the state law if that's the only perspective to look at it and so your cost justification is no justification at all or at least it's not a legitimate justification because it contravenes express st sometimes they may not seem like an appropriate but that's the original for the government to do so in this case m p s believes its legitimate for us to meet the educational mandy to offer these special programs because absent that many students would not receive imperfect fit into means and so i i do think m p s has a legitimate interest in meeting this educational mandate and i don't think it's irrational for them to say well because we need to provide if it's if it's done you know arbitrarily it's not a rational basis for your correct that if that's the way it's being done if they want to pass rational basis but i don't think our m p s acting in an arbitrary manner and making these decisions and i do crime the policy certainly administrative concerns can be a rational purpose by m p s this policy does not address those concerns in a rational manner you can imagine two students enrolling on august thirty first one public and one private information about neither student both would be late the administrative tasks would be the same determining where the child's enrolled whether the child eligible for transportation and then setting up that transportation it m p s provides busing to the public school student and denies busing to the private school student the statute that talks about a deadline doesn't apply here because that only applies to schools that are required to transport it doesn't apply under the city option and noticeably the statute does not say th discorporate designee admitted that there is no practical distinction between schools like us and their own citywide schools this entire litigation process we've searched for difference between the two and there isn't one and there's certainly nothing in the statutes justifiable on that ground there's a twenty percent availability and marcie public school district there were several schools that we produced when her grief that transported students despite the fact that there were open seats  neighborhood area and they could they could attend those neighborhoods