In the case of Schmidt et al., DBA Schmidt & Pollard v. Oakland Unified School District et al., 1981, the plaintiffs were a group of taxpayers who challenged the constitutionality of a California statute that allowed school districts to levy special taxes for educational programs. The Supreme Court held that this law did not violate either the Equal Protection Clause or Article IX, Section 6(a) of the California Constitution which requires uniform taxation across all property within a district's jurisdiction. The court reasoned that there was no discrimination as every taxpayer in each district had an equal opportunity to vote on whether or not they wanted their tax dollars used for these specific purposes and therefore it did not infringe upon any constitutional rights.

In the dissenting opinion for Schmidt et al., DBA Schmidt & Pollard v. Oakland Unified School District et al., Justice Rehnquist disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a California law that allowed school districts to charge fees for extracurricular activities. He argued that this violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as it discriminated against students who could not afford these fees. In his view, public education should be free and accessible to all students regardless of their financial situation. He also expressed concern about potential abuses of such a policy, including schools charging excessive fees or using them as a way to exclude certain students from participating in activities. Furthermore, he questioned whether there was sufficient evidence showing that these fees were necessary for funding extracurricular programs.