The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed and remanded a district court’s ruling, finding that the Oklahoma Secondary School Activity Association’s (OSSAA) membership requirements for nonpublic schools violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
The appeals court found specifically that “although OSSAA has identified legitimate purposes for distinguishing between public and nonpublic schools in regards to their admission to the organization, the requirement in OSSAA’s Constitution that nonpublic schools obtain majority approval in order to be admitted is not rationally related to any of those legitimate purposes.”
The events leading up to this litigation began in March 1998 when Christian Heritage, a private religious school in Del City, Oklahoma, applied for membership to the state-organized school activities association, which regulates interscholastic activities.
When a nonpublic school applies for membership to the organization, members vote for or against the application. “However, members are provided with, and are subject to, no standards or guidelines in voting,” wrote the court. The nonpublic school is required to designate a geographic region within which students enrolled in the school would be considered immediately eligible for athletics by reason of residence.
Upon its first attempt to join to OSSAA, Christian Heritage was denied approval in April 1998 because it failed to gain majority approval.
After a petition was written by Perry Adams, the Superintendent of Inola Public Schools, the OSSAA’s Board of Directors created the Nonpublic and Public School Relations Committee to investigate member schools’ concerns about nonpublic schools.
The Committee found that OSSAA members believed that nonpublic schools have an “unfair advantage in competition, but there is not a great deal of consistency with regard to exactly what it is that makes the field unlevel.”
Therefore, the Committee “rejected each of the proffered reasons for denying membership to nonpublic schools in a Special Report, which was mailed to all OSSAA members in January 1999,” wrote the court. “The Committee emphasized that OSSAA rules prohibit recruiting or providing scholarships for athletics, and that the transfer rule effectively resolves concerns about a nonpublic schools designating its geographic boundary.”
After the Committee issued their Special Report, Christian Heritage applied again for membership in August 1999. However, they were denied for a second time by an even larger margin. Executive Secretary Rennels said “athletic success of several of the nonpublic school members in the years that Christian Heritage was applying for membership was a significant factor in the voting on Christian Heritage’s applications for membership in 1998 and 1999.”
Originally, “the parties filed cross motions for summary judgment, but Christian Heritage did not advance any First Amendment argument in its motion for summary judgment. On September 23, 2004, the district court granted summary judgment for OSSAA,” wrote the court.
Christian Heritage appealed that decision, contending “that OSSAA violated the Equal Protection Clause in denying its membership application,” wrote the court.
Christian Heritage advanced two equal protection arguments. First, Christian Heritage maintains that Article III, Section 1 of the OSSAA Constitution violates the Equal Protection Clause since public high schools are automatically admitted upon request, while nonpublic schools must obtain majority approval of existing members.
The Equal Protection Clause states that “no State shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
In its decision, the court wrote that “although OSSAA has identified legitimate purposes for distinguishing between public and nonpublic schools in regards to their admission to the organization, the requirement in OSSAA’s Constitution that nonpublic schools obtain majority approval in order to be admitted is not rationally related to any of those legitimate purposes.
“Under rational basis scrutiny, we will uphold OSSAA’s requirement of majority approval so long as it is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose or end.”
The court wrote that “in determining whether this referendum requirement violates Christian Heritage’s Equal Protection rights, we begin by concluding that Christian Heritage is similarly situated to at least some of the public schools that have been admitted to OSSAA.
“In addition … Christian Heritage has also demonstrated disparate treatment. Specifically, public schools are admitted to OSSAA without having to obtain approval from a majority of OSSAA’s members, while nonpublic schools, even if they satisfy all other requirements for admission, must obtain majority approval from the members of the association.”
In this case, OSSAA justifies the majority approval requirement because nonpublic schools must declare a geographic area for eligibility purposes.
However, there is still the issue that no standards or restrictions are imposed on existing members when casting their votes. “As a result, we conclude there is a complete disconnect between the majority voting requirement and the legitimate purposes that OSSAA and we have identified,” wrote the court.
The court wrote that “because OSSAA’s differential treatment of public and nonpublic applicants is manifested exclusively in the majority voting requirement, that requirement is clearly subject to an equal protection challenge.
“In other words, because there is non connection between the Article III, Section 1, classification and any legitimate government purpose, denying membership to nonpublic schools for failure to garner majority approval is arbitrary and irrational.”
Therefore, the court reversed and remanded to the district court “with directions to enter summary judgment in favor of Christian Heritage on that claim. On remand, the district court will determine the appropriate declaratory relief and injunctive relief to which Christian Heritage is entitled.”
Christian Heritage Academy, a private corporation v. Oklahoma Secondary School Activities Association, a not-for-profit association; 10th Cir.; No. 04-6342; 04/09/2007.
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiff) Michael Salem, William D. Graves and Christ Box, (for defendant) Mark S. Grossman, Clyde A. Muchmore and Mary H. Tolbert.
