A federal judge from the Western District of Virginia has sided with the Virginia High School League, Inc. in a legal dispute in which a group of parents challenged the authority of VHSL to dictate where exactly student athletes at a school that was closing could transfer and gain immediate eligibility.
“Despite my sympathy for the children’s situation, the plaintiffs have not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their lawsuit and thus I am unable to grant them relief,” wrote the court.
In March 2011, the Wise County School Board voted to consolidate its six high schools into three, resulting in the end of St. Paul High School, which pulled students from both Wise and Russell Counties. Under the plan, all students who formerly attended St. Paul High School were reassigned to Coeburn High School, located in Wise County. Students residing in the Russell County portion of the Town were granted the additional option, by virtue of their residency, of attending the nearest Russell County alternative, Castlewood High School.
“However, Virginia law does not mandate that students attend the resident school assigned to them by their local school board,” wrote the court. “Thus, because Castlewood High School indicated its willingness to accept St. Paul High School’s former students, regardless of residency, all the students retained the ability to choose between Coeburn and Castlewood High Schools.”
The vast majority of the student athletes, who were going to St. Paul, wanted to go to Castlewood.
As part of its duties, VHSL establishes eligibility requirements for student participation, which are intended to “provide a uniform code” in order to “equalize to some degree the opportunities for success in competition, to encourage the participation of representative students, and to ensure maintenance of minimum essential standards by all school representatives.”
Pertinent to the present dispute are VHSL’s eligibility policies regarding transfer students. VHSL’s Transfer Rule applies whenever a student enrolled in one school transfers to another without a corresponding change in the residence of his parents or guardian. If a student transfers to another high school and does not fall under one of the Transfer Rule’s exceptions, the student is ineligible from participating in VHSL-sponsored interscholastic competitions for one calendar year. The stated purpose of the Transfer Rule is “to discourage recruiting and transfers for athletic/activity reasons and to encourage students to live with their parents and be enrolled in school continuously in their home districts. The Transfer Rule addresses the case of a school closure by providing an exception if the student transfers to the school serving the district in which his parents reside.
Shortly after the announcement of Wise County’s school reassignments, the Mayor of St. Paul contacted VHSL seeking an exception to the Transfer Rule. The Mayor requested that the Wise County St. Paul High School students be granted an eligibility exception should they choose to transfer to Castlewood High School. After review, VHSL’s Executive Committee denied the request, decreeing that if a student lived in the Russell County portion of the town prior to the closure, he or she would be immediately eligible to participate in interscholastic activities at either Coeburn High School or Castlewood High School. However, if a student lived in the Wise County portion of the Town, he or she would be eligible only at Coeburn High School.
Although several of the plaintiffs made initial inquiries to VHSL regarding their children’s individual transfer status, they substantially relied on the Executive Committee’s response to the Mayor’s letter, and they did not appeal using VHSL’s administrative remedies. Instead, they filed the instant lawsuit, seeking a permanent injunction against the VHSL preventing the application of the transfer rule to their children. They also asked for a preliminary injunction to allow their children temporary eligibility at Castlewood High School while this lawsuit is pending.
The court wrote that the plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment claims “are grounded in the argument that the transfer rule deprives them of the ‘parental right to raise one’s child and to make decisions about the child’s welfare.’ Although it is well-established that the Constitution protects the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children, Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 66, 120 S. Ct. 2054, 147 L. Ed. 2d 49 (2000), it is equally apparent that the right is neither absolute nor unqualified. Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248, 256, 103 S. Ct. 2985, 77 L. Ed. 2d 614 (1983).
“Indeed, as the case law makes clear, the right to parent is not implicated here. As the plaintiffs concede, the transfer rule does not eliminate the parents’ freedom of choice regarding where they send their children to school. The rule instead affects only one metric of consideration in exercising that choice. Although couched in terms of the fundamental right to parent, the real ‘right’ the plaintiffs attempt to assert is the right of their children to participate in extracurricular activities with the school of their choice. Components of the educational process, such as interscholastic competition, are issues of public education that do not merit constitutional protection. Sisson v. Va. High Sch. League, Inc., No. 7:10CV00530, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132264, 2010 WL 5173264, at *4 (W.D. Va. Dec. 14, 2010).
After concluding that the plaintiffs’ substantive due process claim has “very little likelihood of success on the merits,” the court turned to the plaintiffs’ claim that the association violated their rights under the Equal Protection Clause.
“The sole question is whether the VHSL Transfer Rule bears a rational relationship to a legitimate state interest,” wrote the court, citing FCC v. Beach Commc’ns, Inc., 508 U.S. 307, 313, 113 S. Ct. 2096, 124 L. Ed. 2d 211 (1993).
“The VHSL handbook states that the purpose of the transfer rule is to discourage athletic and academic recruiting and to encourage students to attend school in their parents’ resident district. The handbook also emphasizes the desire to establish rules that can be applied fairly and uniformly. Transfer rules articulating comparable goals have been upheld under rational basis scrutiny time and again. See, e.g., Walsh v. La. High Sch. Athletic Ass’n, 616 F.2d 152, 160-61 (5th Cir. 1980). Given the consistency of the case law and the deferential nature of rational basis review, I find that the plaintiffs’ have not demonstrated a likelihood of success on their equal protection claim.”
Aside from the deficiencies in the presented evidence, the court wrote that the plaintiffs also “failed to show irreparable harm. Courts have routinely rejected the notion that a student suffers irreparable harm by not being permitted to participate in interscholastic athletics. Sisson, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132264, 2010 WL 5173264, at *4.
“The court heard testimony and argument underscoring the significant benefits interscholastic competition contributes to a child’s educational development. This court fully supports those values. No doubt the perseverance and commitment demonstrated by the parents in this case is not lost on their children. However, lessons of victory and defeat, of fairness and unfairness, and of overcoming setbacks, so often taught in the sports arena, are also present in difficult life circumstances like this one. I hope that, despite the disappointing legal outcome, the plaintiffs’ children remember that ‘clear eyes, full hearts, can’t lose.’
Crystal Mcgee, et al. v. Virginia High School League, Inc.; .W.D. Va.; Case No. 2:11CV00035, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88941; 8/11/11
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiffs) Hugh F. O’Donnell, Client Centered Legal Services of Southwest Virginia, Norton, Virginia, and Michael A. Bragg, Bragg Law, PLC, Abingdon, Virginia. (for defendant) R. Craig Wood and Aaron J. Longo, McGuire Woods LLP, Charlottesville, Virginia and Charlotte, North Carolina.
