The U.S. Supreme Court ruled last month that the Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association’s enforcement of its anti-recruiting rule against the Brentwood Academy did not violate the private school’s free speech rights under the First Amendment of the Constitution.
The dispute surfaced a decade ago when Brentwood’s football coach wrote what he believed was an innocuous letter to 8th grade students inviting them to a spring football practice. The 8th graders had already signaled their intention to attend Brentwood. No matter. The missive violated the TSSAA rules, which forbade such contact until the student had attended the school for three days. The TSSAA punished the academy, which had run one of the most successful football programs in the state for the better part of two decades, by banning it from the football and basketball playoffs for two years.
Brentwood sued, alleging the TSSAA had violated its Constitutional rights to free speech. In 2001, the litigation reached the U.S. Supreme Court for the first time as the two sides argued whether the TSSAA should be considered a “state actor.” In a contentious 5-4 ruling, the court then agreed with Brentwood that the association was a state actor, meaning Brentwood could have been deprived of its Constitutional rights.
Brentwood then maintained its winning streak at the district court level, which found the TSSAA had violated its free speech and due process rights. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, spawning the present appeal from the TSSAA.
This time, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Brentwood had voluntarily joined the association and therefore was subject to what it termed “a reasonable regulation.” Further, it found that the TSSAA can impose rules that are “necessary to managing an efficient and effective state-sponsored high school athletic league.”
The court elaborated that “The First Amendment protects Brentwood’s right to publish truthful information about the school and its athletic programs. It likewise protects the school’s right to try to persuade prospective students and their parents that its excellence in sports is a reason for enrolling. But Brentwood’s speech rights are not absolute … .
“The First Amendment does not excuse Brentwood from abiding by the same anti-recruiting rule that governs the conduct of its sister schools. To hold otherwise would undermine the principle … that ‘[h]igh school football is a game. Games have rules.’ … . It is only fair that Brentwood follow them.”
