BA vs TSSAA

[my2cents]

I think that is the key issue. It seems like the TSSAA got caught with its pants down because there were no specific rules regarding who could participate in Spring practice. After all it's just practice and not actual competition. They should have just established a rule that only students attending classes are eligible to participate in spring practice.

 

It raises a lot of questions. Did BA send the letters to every male who had signed enrollment papers? Or was the letter sent only to those known to be football players? What about reading lists? If BA sent letters to all future attendees while they were still students elsehwere specifiying what the summer reading list was and how summer book reports had to be written, wouldn't that (as the TSSAA saw it back then) be considered correspondence that is "undue influence." As itzme says the issue isn't spring practice itself; it's the actual correspondence that was said to be "undue influence." So technically the subject matter of the letter would be immaterial. If a student was in a state of "committed but not yet attending classes," an "invitation" to participate in the summer reading program could be viewed as an effort to unduly influence that student to attend the school.

 

Read pages 9, 15 & 16 makes the sent papers very clear. Not long at all.

 

http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/06-427BIO.pdf

[BDURHAM]

My hunch is that the TSSAA didn't break this letter

down to the degree it is being broken down by the

lawyers. The TSSAA had received many complaints

about BA, and at the end of the investigations, the

letter and tickets were the best they had.

 

Many people feel as though there should have

been more substantial infractions documented,

but the TSSAA went with what they had. On

the surface, through the prism of the TSSAA

handbook, BA was guilty on the infractions.

 

Through the debates in the courtroom, BA might

slide and change the face of high school football.

Neither the beginning or end of this lawsuit makes

any sense on the surface.

 

 

 

While I disagree with your characterization of the discussion here, the reason I have posted on this subject is to allow those who might not be as biased about this as you and I are to read the documents, understand the nature of the original complaint from BA's perspective, and make up their own minds.

 

Having accomplished that goal to my satisfaction, I now bow out.

[big red big blue]

Read pages 9, 15 & 16 makes the sent papers very clear. Not long at all.

 

http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/06-427BIO.pdf

 

you're right....good read and worthwhile. Goodness, is this thing contentious. Pages 24-25 I think capture the situation best--that the practice itself was legal but that the communication inviting the students to paticipate in the practice was illegal. It makes no sense, imo.

[BDURHAM]

Get out the net!

 

Barfield just snagged another one.

 

you're right....good read and worthwhile. Goodness, is this thing contentious. Pages 24-25 I think capture the situation best--that the practice itself was legal but that the communication inviting the students to paticipate in the practice was illegal. It makes no sense, imo.

 

 

REASONS FOR DENYING CERTIORARI

 

The Petition reads like a game of pin-the-tail-on-theconstitutional-

donkey, blindly trying to find some doctrine

somewhere whose standards TSSAA can possibly meet,

even if there is no real applicability to the circumstances.

TSSAA has never been able to explain why it

disciplined BA for a harmless communication to nonmatriculated

students and their parents about an activity

spring football practice that the rules allowed the students

to attend.

Edited January 17, 2007 by StanTrott

[TedLNancy]

This topic made it into the Los Angeles Times. See it below.

 

ERIC SONDHEIMER

Recruiting rule faces test at the top court

Eric Sondheimer

January 10, 2007

 

 

It's an ingenious argument likely to be debated in gyms, football stadiums and law schools across the nation.

 

Brentwood Academy, a private high school in Brentwood, Tenn., has been claiming 1st Amendment privileges for violating the state's anti-recruiting rules.

 

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Assn. vs. Brentwood Academy. Oral arguments are set for April, with a decision expected during the summer that could have implications nationwide on high school sports programs.

 

The case is in its 10th year of a legal quandary, and it's the second time the Supreme Court has intervened. Combined legal fees have surpassed $3 million.

 

It started in 1997, when Brentwood, which has won nine state football championships in 21 title-game appearances since 1974, was fined $3,000 and put on four years probation for sending out letters and making phone calls to a dozen incoming ninth-graders, inviting them to participate in spring football practice.

 

Brentwood officials claim the students had already signed contracts and paid deposits to attend the school and were eligible to practice with the team, but the TSSAA ruled the school violated recruiting rules because the students weren't officially enrolled.

 

Brentwood filed a federal lawsuit, claiming its free speech rights were violated. A U.S. District Court judge agreed, along with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Now, the Supreme Court will have to decide.

 

"At the end of the day, if the Sixth Circuit opinion is upheld, it's going to create problems for maintaining discipline, order and competitive balance at the high school level," said Dan Lazaroff, director of Loyola Sports Law Institute. "And it's going to create questions whether associations can be effective in protecting exploitation of high school athletes."

 

Brentwood insists it supports a strong recruiting rule, but the issue revolves around "whether a school giving information about a permitted activity to students already committed to the school can be censured for initiating contact with students," according to the academy's headmaster, Curt Masters.

 

The fact the Supreme Court is being asked to decide whether a high school recruiting rule is unconstitutional is the perfect subject matter for Sports Illustrated's weekly "Sign of the Apocalypse."

 

The dissenting opinion in the Sixth Circuit Court decision offers an appropriate overview of how out of whack this case is.

 

"High school football is a game," Judge John Rogers wrote. "Games have rules. To have federal courts, under the guise of applying the enduring principles of the 1st Amendment, reverse the ordinary application of high school football recruiting rules — where the core values of the Amendment are not even remotely involved — unduly trivializes these constitutional principles."

 

In 2001, the Supreme Court decided in a 5-4 vote that Tennessee's sports association was a state actor, subjecting it to constitutional oversight.

 

That opened the way for Brentwood's 1st Amendment claims.

 

The case could have profound national implications because most state associations that run high school sports programs have similar rules barring recruiting.

 

Because it believes the court's decision may affect its interests, the National Federation of State High School Assns. is likely to submit a "friend of the court" brief in support of the TSSAA. Some state associations may do the same.

 

"Recruiting is part of college sports but not at the high school level," Bruce Howard, director of publications and communications for the NFSHSA, wrote in an e-mail. "If some schools were allowed to recruit and others could not, it could have a devastating effect on high school sports."

 

Competitive equity would go out the window if there were no recruiting rules, but two courts have already ruled that fostering competitive equity is not a "substantial state interest," so now it's up to the Supreme Court.

 

Do they really want high school sports to deteriorate into a college sports-like scene, where schools hire compliance directors, employ recruiting coordinators and athletics becomes as, if not more, important than academics?

 

"This is a critical test," said Jim Staunton, CIF Southern Section commissioner. "We're opening the door for coaches up and down the state to have football open house night, basketball open house night. I worry about that being an outcome. I worry that individual coaches would be able to induce kids to come to their school for athletic reasons."

 

In the end, will the Supreme Court support Brentwood's 1st Amendment claims?

 

"It would make it very difficult for any state to regulate recruiting by any school, and it's hard to imagine the court wants to go down that path," said Erwin Chemerinsky, a Duke law professor.

 

The good news is that the chief justice of the Supreme Court, John G. Roberts, was captain of his high school football team in Indiana, and he should be able to apply first-hand common sense to this case.

 

Hopefully, Roberts will recall the fundamental reason anti-recruiting rules exist and why high school sports associations must be able to prevent schools and coaches from illegally contacting students: to protect the integrity of the game.

[supersteve17]

This topic made it into the Los Angeles Times. See it below.

 

ERIC SONDHEIMER

Recruiting rule faces test at the top court

Eric Sondheimer

January 10, 2007

It's an ingenious argument likely to be debated in gyms, football stadiums and law schools across the nation.

 

Brentwood Academy, a private high school in Brentwood, Tenn., has been claiming 1st Amendment privileges for violating the state's anti-recruiting rules.

 

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Assn. vs. Brentwood Academy. Oral arguments are set for April, with a decision expected during the summer that could have implications nationwide on high school sports programs.

 

The case is in its 10th year of a legal quandary, and it's the second time the Supreme Court has intervened. Combined legal fees have surpassed $3 million.

 

It started in 1997, when Brentwood, which has won nine state football championships in 21 title-game appearances since 1974, was fined $3,000 and put on four years probation for sending out letters and making phone calls to a dozen incoming ninth-graders, inviting them to participate in spring football practice.

 

Brentwood officials claim the students had already signed contracts and paid deposits to attend the school and were eligible to practice with the team, but the TSSAA ruled the school violated recruiting rules because the students weren't officially enrolled.

 

Brentwood filed a federal lawsuit, claiming its free speech rights were violated. A U.S. District Court judge agreed, along with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Now, the Supreme Court will have to decide.

 

"At the end of the day, if the Sixth Circuit opinion is upheld, it's going to create problems for maintaining discipline, order and competitive balance at the high school level," said Dan Lazaroff, director of Loyola Sports Law Institute. "And it's going to create questions whether associations can be effective in protecting exploitation of high school athletes."

 

Brentwood insists it supports a strong recruiting rule, but the issue revolves around "whether a school giving information about a permitted activity to students already committed to the school can be censured for initiating contact with students," according to the academy's headmaster, Curt Masters.

 

The fact the Supreme Court is being asked to decide whether a high school recruiting rule is unconstitutional is the perfect subject matter for Sports Illustrated's weekly "Sign of the Apocalypse."

 

The dissenting opinion in the Sixth Circuit Court decision offers an appropriate overview of how out of whack this case is.

 

"High school football is a game," Judge John Rogers wrote. "Games have rules. To have federal courts, under the guise of applying the enduring principles of the 1st Amendment, reverse the ordinary application of high school football recruiting rules — where the core values of the Amendment are not even remotely involved — unduly trivializes these constitutional principles."

 

In 2001, the Supreme Court decided in a 5-4 vote that Tennessee's sports association was a state actor, subjecting it to constitutional oversight.

 

That opened the way for Brentwood's 1st Amendment claims.

 

The case could have profound national implications because most state associations that run high school sports programs have similar rules barring recruiting.

 

Because it believes the court's decision may affect its interests, the National Federation of State High School Assns. is likely to submit a "friend of the court" brief in support of the TSSAA. Some state associations may do the same.

 

"Recruiting is part of college sports but not at the high school level," Bruce Howard, director of publications and communications for the NFSHSA, wrote in an e-mail. "If some schools were allowed to recruit and others could not, it could have a devastating effect on high school sports."

 

Competitive equity would go out the window if there were no recruiting rules, but two courts have already ruled that fostering competitive equity is not a "substantial state interest," so now it's up to the Supreme Court.

 

Do they really want high school sports to deteriorate into a college sports-like scene, where schools hire compliance directors, employ recruiting coordinators and athletics becomes as, if not more, important than academics?

 

"This is a critical test," said Jim Staunton, CIF Southern Section commissioner. "We're opening the door for coaches up and down the state to have football open house night, basketball open house night. I worry about that being an outcome. I worry that individual coaches would be able to induce kids to come to their school for athletic reasons."

 

In the end, will the Supreme Court support Brentwood's 1st Amendment claims?

 

"It would make it very difficult for any state to regulate recruiting by any school, and it's hard to imagine the court wants to go down that path," said Erwin Chemerinsky, a Duke law professor.

 

The good news is that the chief justice of the Supreme Court, John G. Roberts, was captain of his high school football team in Indiana, and he should be able to apply first-hand common sense to this case.

 

Hopefully, Roberts will recall the fundamental reason anti-recruiting rules exist and why high school sports associations must be able to prevent schools and coaches from illegally contacting students: to protect the integrity of the game.

 

A well written opinion piece by Sondheimer, but as I read this brief, BA is not trying to trivialize the First Amendment as Sondheimer implies. They are merely trying to call the TSSAA's hand on arbitrary application of a recruiting rule that, at the time, was vague and obtuse. BA's argument seems to be that they (BA) had as much right to contact students who had already made a commitment to attend their school as Riverdale had to contact POTENTIAL students to inform them of summer workouts and practice sessions.

 

Hopefully, the recruiting rules, which BA agrees are necessary, can be/have been re-written more clearly in order to avoid such arbitrary enforcement.

 

Sondheimer is obviously a "public school guy." (Said with tongue in cheek.)

[BDURHAM]

Interesting article.

 

Thanks for the post.

 

This topic made it into the Los Angeles Times. See it below.

 

ERIC SONDHEIMER

Recruiting rule faces test at the top court

Eric Sondheimer

January 10, 2007

It's an ingenious argument likely to be debated in gyms, football stadiums and law schools across the nation.

 

Brentwood Academy, a private high school in Brentwood, Tenn., has been claiming 1st Amendment privileges for violating the state's anti-recruiting rules.

 

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Assn. vs. Brentwood Academy. Oral arguments are set for April, with a decision expected during the summer that could have implications nationwide on high school sports programs.

 

The case is in its 10th year of a legal quandary, and it's the second time the Supreme Court has intervened. Combined legal fees have surpassed $3 million.

 

It started in 1997, when Brentwood, which has won nine state football championships in 21 title-game appearances since 1974, was fined $3,000 and put on four years probation for sending out letters and making phone calls to a dozen incoming ninth-graders, inviting them to participate in spring football practice.

 

Brentwood officials claim the students had already signed contracts and paid deposits to attend the school and were eligible to practice with the team, but the TSSAA ruled the school violated recruiting rules because the students weren't officially enrolled.

 

Brentwood filed a federal lawsuit, claiming its free speech rights were violated. A U.S. District Court judge agreed, along with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Now, the Supreme Court will have to decide.

 

"At the end of the day, if the Sixth Circuit opinion is upheld, it's going to create problems for maintaining discipline, order and competitive balance at the high school level," said Dan Lazaroff, director of Loyola Sports Law Institute. "And it's going to create questions whether associations can be effective in protecting exploitation of high school athletes."

 

Brentwood insists it supports a strong recruiting rule, but the issue revolves around "whether a school giving information about a permitted activity to students already committed to the school can be censured for initiating contact with students," according to the academy's headmaster, Curt Masters.

 

The fact the Supreme Court is being asked to decide whether a high school recruiting rule is unconstitutional is the perfect subject matter for Sports Illustrated's weekly "Sign of the Apocalypse."

 

The dissenting opinion in the Sixth Circuit Court decision offers an appropriate overview of how out of whack this case is.

 

"High school football is a game," Judge John Rogers wrote. "Games have rules. To have federal courts, under the guise of applying the enduring principles of the 1st Amendment, reverse the ordinary application of high school football recruiting rules — where the core values of the Amendment are not even remotely involved — unduly trivializes these constitutional principles."

 

In 2001, the Supreme Court decided in a 5-4 vote that Tennessee's sports association was a state actor, subjecting it to constitutional oversight.

 

That opened the way for Brentwood's 1st Amendment claims.

 

The case could have profound national implications because most state associations that run high school sports programs have similar rules barring recruiting.

 

Because it believes the court's decision may affect its interests, the National Federation of State High School Assns. is likely to submit a "friend of the court" brief in support of the TSSAA. Some state associations may do the same.

 

"Recruiting is part of college sports but not at the high school level," Bruce Howard, director of publications and communications for the NFSHSA, wrote in an e-mail. "If some schools were allowed to recruit and others could not, it could have a devastating effect on high school sports."

 

Competitive equity would go out the window if there were no recruiting rules, but two courts have already ruled that fostering competitive equity is not a "substantial state interest," so now it's up to the Supreme Court.

 

Do they really want high school sports to deteriorate into a college sports-like scene, where schools hire compliance directors, employ recruiting coordinators and athletics becomes as, if not more, important than academics?

 

"This is a critical test," said Jim Staunton, CIF Southern Section commissioner. "We're opening the door for coaches up and down the state to have football open house night, basketball open house night. I worry about that being an outcome. I worry that individual coaches would be able to induce kids to come to their school for athletic reasons."

 

In the end, will the Supreme Court support Brentwood's 1st Amendment claims?

 

"It would make it very difficult for any state to regulate recruiting by any school, and it's hard to imagine the court wants to go down that path," said Erwin Chemerinsky, a Duke law professor.

 

The good news is that the chief justice of the Supreme Court, John G. Roberts, was captain of his high school football team in Indiana, and he should be able to apply first-hand common sense to this case.

 

Hopefully, Roberts will recall the fundamental reason anti-recruiting rules exist and why high school sports associations must be able to prevent schools and coaches from illegally contacting students: to protect the integrity of the game.