C.E. v. Board of Education of East St. Louis School District No. 189, 970 N.E.2d 1287

Plaintiffs are elementary students attending Sister Thea Bowman Catholic School within East St. Louis School District No. 189 who reside more than 1½ miles from their school and lie on or along the public bus route.
District previously provided Catholic-school transportation on all days Catholic school was in session, including days public schools were not; toward end of 2009-10, district limited transportation to days public schools were in session.
During the 2010-11 school year, approximately 15 days occurred when transportation to Catholic-school students was not provided because public schools were not in session.
Plaintiffs sued the Board and the district superintendent for declaratory and injunctive relief for failure to provide transportation on days when the Catholic school was in session but public schools were not.
The circuit court granted summary judgment for defendants, holding that §29-4 requires no transportation beyond what is provided to public-school students and that the statute aims to minimize cost, convenience, and efficiency concerns for the district.
The Appellate Court affirmed, holding that §29-4 is satisfied by transporting nonpublic students on the same basis as public-school students and does not require broader service on nonpublic calendars.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does §29-4 require transportation for nonpublic students on days when public schools are not in session?	C.E. and others contend yes; district must transport nonpublic students when their school is in session.	District argues no; transportation should not exceed what is provided to public-school students.	No; transportation on those days is not required.
Can extrinsic evidence be used to discern legislative intent of §29-4 where text is silent?	Extrinsic evidence should aid interpretation to protect nonpublic students.	Statute should be read plain; extrinsic sources only if ambiguity.	Extrinsic evidence supports the legislature's intent to limit nonpublic transportation to the same basis as public-school transportation.
May districts establish separate routes for nonpublic-school transportation under §29-4?	Separate routes might be necessary to meet needs of nonpublic-school students.	Separate routes allowed only if safer, more economical, and more efficient for the district.	District may establish separate routes only if it meets safety, economic, and efficiency criteria; otherwise transportation should align with public-school bus routes.

DesPain v. City of Collinsville, 382 Ill. App. 3d 572 (Ill. App. 5th Dist. 2008) (statutory interpretation and summary judgment standards applied; de novo review of statutory construction)
Wood v. North Wamac School District No. 186, 386 Ill. App. 3d 874 (Ill. App. 5th Dist. 2008) (interpretation of statute; extrinsic sources used when language is ambiguous)