holding that excluding private schools from VHSL membership was rationally related to legitimate concerns regarding recruiting, transfer and eligibility enforcement, and competitive pressures associated with school choice based on athletics
How later courts described this case
- holding that excluding private schools from VHSL membership was rationally related to legitimate concerns regarding recruiting, transfer and eligibility enforcement, and competitive pressures associated with school choice based on athletics
- upholding blanket exclusion of all nonpublic schools from public athletic association
- patients’ constitutional rights not infringed where state board for professional medical conduct subpoenaed medical records in the course of a disciplinary investigation
- “[Education is not a fundamental right under the Constitution, and, of course, neither is participation in interscholastic athletics such a right.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Christian Heritage Academy, a Private Corporation v. Oklahoma Secondary School Activities Association, a Not-For-Profit Association, 483 F.3d 1025 (2007)
We also reject OSSAA’s assertion that this case is analogous to Denis J. O’Connell High School v. Virginia High School League, 581 F.2d 81 (4th Cir.1978).
The opinion
BUTZNER, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I agree that the district court properly took jurisdiction in this case, but I would affirm the judgment.
Denis J. O’Connell High School brought this action because its exclusion from the Virginia High School League handicaps its students who compete for athletic scholarships and other benefits available to talented athletes. To explain its exclusion of private and parochial schools, the League cited the ability of these schools to draw students from a wider geographic area than public schools and the difficulty in enforcing the eligibility rules for transfer students.
Quite properly, the district court rejected these arguments. The geographic areas from which public schools draw vary widely in size and population. There is ample evidence to support the district court’s determination that the League’s asserted justifications for excluding private and parochial schools lack a factual foundation. Since this finding is not clearly erroneous, it is binding on us. Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a).
Moreover, the cases cited to support the League’s policy concern no-transfer rules within an association including public, private, and parochial schools. See Walsh v. Louisiana High School Athletic Ass’n., 428 F.Supp. 1261 (E.D.La.1977); Chabert v. Louisiana High School Athletic Ass’n., 312 So.2d 343 (La.App.), aff’d 323 So.2d 774 (La.1975). No case approving a policy excluding non-public schools from an athletic association has been cited. The fact that the Louisiana association operates and enforces a no-transfer rule successfully without excluding private and parochial schools belies the League’s argument.
Because the record discloses no factual basis for concluding that the League’s exclusionary rule bears some rational relationship to the state’s purpose, I am persuaded that the district court correctly decided that the rule violated the equal protection clause. See San Antonio School District v. Rodriquez, 411 U.S. 1, 40 , 93 S.Ct. 1278 , 36 L.Ed.2d 16 (1973). The district court also properly held that admission of Denis J. O’Connell High School to the League would not violate the establishment clause of the first amendment. See Wolman v. Walter, 433 U.S. 229, 235-36 , 97 S.Ct. 2593 , 53 L.Ed.2d 714 (1977). Consequently, I dissent.