In a majority decision, the Mississippi Supreme Court ruled that a student athlete has standing to challenge an eligibility decision made by the Mississippi High School Activities Association (MHSAA) because he is “directly affected” by the contract between the MHSAA and the public school that he attends. In reversing the appeals court, the high court remanded the case for disposition in line with its holding.
The high court began its analysis by noting that the DeSoto County School District has a contract with the MHSAA, which allows that association to decide whether its students are eligible to play high school sports.
In 2012, the student athlete in question (R.T.) was a star quarterback for Wynne Public School in Wynne, Arkansas. His parents decided that a change of school districts would be in R.T.’s best interests. So in January 2013, they bought a house in Olive Branch, Miss. and enrolled R.T. in Olive Branch High School. Meanwhile, his sister continued going to school in Arkansas.
The MHSAA determined that R.T. was eligible to compete in spring sports and allowed him to play baseball. It conditioned R.T.’s continuing eligibility on his sister also enrolling in the school district at the start of the 2013-2014 school year. But, because she did not want to leave her friends behind in Arkansas, the family decided that one parent would stay in Arkansas with their daughter, as they had done during the spring semester, and the other parent would move to Mississippi and remain with R.T.
On the eve of the 2013 football season, the MHSAA notified the school and R.T. that, under its interpretation of its rules and regulations, R.T. was ineligible to play because it had determined that his family had not made a bona fide move to the school district.
Neither the school district nor Olive Branch High School appealed through MHSAA’s internal procedure. Instead, the family immediately filed a petition for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction in the DeSoto County Chancery Court. The chancellor signed an ex-parte order granting the TRO and revoking MHSAA’s adverse eligibility determination.
MHSAA then filed a motion to dismiss under Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) arguing that the family lacked standing to challenge MHSAA’s eligibility determinations and that its action was premature. The family countered that R.T. had standing as a third-party beneficiary to the contract between MHSAA and the School District.
The chancellor granted MHSAA’s motion to dismiss all claims against the MHSAA and the school district and dissolved the original injunction, finding that the family lacked standing because “participation in high school athletics is not a legally enforceable right.” However, the chancellor granted the family’s motion for a stay while the family appealed the Chancery Court’s order dissolving their injunction and dismissing their case.
The legal question ultimately percolated to the state’s highest court by virtue of an interlocutory appeal.
“Under Mississippi’s law governing third-party beneficiaries, we find that student athletes are intended beneficiaries of MHSAA’s eligibility requirements,” according to the Mississippi Supreme Court. “Applying our rules on intended third-party beneficiaries, it is clear that both MHSAA and its member schools intended the students to have a right to compete in athletic competitions and that the parties intended to give this benefit to high school students. The bylaws manifest an intent by both parties to create rules benefitting both member schools and student athletes.”
It further noted that case law dictates that “the specific procedures governing student athletes in the bylaws mean that student athletes, like R.T., are the intended beneficiaries of the contract between the MHSAA and its member schools.
“Our previous decision in Mississippi High School Activities Association v. Farris is readily distinguishable from this case. In Farris, MHSAA threatened to impose sanctions and penalties on member schools allegedly for violating MHSAA’s rules. We addressed only whether high school baseball players were the intended beneficiaries of MHSAA’s handbook’s notice and hearing procedures that allowed the school to challenge the sanctions and penalties. We held that the high school baseball players were merely incidental beneficiaries to MHSAA’s notice and hearing provisions, which were intended only to benefit high schools facing sanctions. Here, unlike Farris, the issue directly affects the student, and not merely the school.”
The court concluded that “while it generally is true that high school students have no legally protected right to participate in high school athletics, once a school decides to create a sports program and establish eligibility rules, the school—or as in this case, MHSAA—has a duty to follow those rules; and it may be held accountable when it does not do so. Without the students, there would be no school, no principal, no school board, no MHSAA, and no athletic program, so we find it fairly obvious that high school student-athletes are among the intended beneficiaries of high school athletic programs, and the rules that govern them—whether those rules are administered by the school, the school district, or a private entity with whom the school contracts.
“And where, as here, the school delegates its authority to control student eligibility through a contract with a private entity, we hold that students directly affected by the contract are third-party beneficiaries of that contract. For us to say otherwise would run contrary to the very reason for extracurricular activities, which is to enrich the educational experience of the students. Accordingly, we hold that R.T. does have standing to challenge MHSAA’s eligibility decision that prevented him from playing high school sports. The decision of the chancery court is affirmed, and the case is remanded to the Chancery Court of DeSoto County for proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
Mississippi High School Activities Association, INC. v. R.T. A Minor, By and Through His Natural Father and Next Friend, Richard R. Trail; S.Ct. Miss.; NO. 2013-IA-01728-SCT, 163 So. 3d 274; 2015 Miss. LEXIS 229; 5/8/15
Attorneys of Record: (for appellant) Benjamin Blue Morgan, James A. Keith, John Jeffrey Trotter, J. Keith Treadway. (for appellee) Steven E. Farese, Sr., Joseph Whitten Cooper, Norman William Pauli, Jr.
