The Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed the ruling of a district court, finding that granting a temporary restraining order to a high school basketball player and his parents and ultimately holding that the Louisiana High School Athletic Association (“LHSAA”) cannot render an eligibility ruling is adverse to a desegregation order, which was sufficient and resolved the plaintiffs’ litigation.
Plaintiffs Taj Jackson and his parents appealed the district court’s modification of its desegregation order as it pertains to the athletic eligibility of certain student transfers. Jackson, an African American student and high school basketball player, received an approved “Majority to Minority transfer” (“M-to-M”) from Hammond High School, with a predominately black student body, to Ponchatoula High School, with a predominately white student body, in June 2022.
After receiving the transfer, Jackson was informed by the LHSAA that he would be ineligible to play on the varsity basketball team at Ponchatoula that year. The relevant provision of the desegregation order in effect at the time of Jackson’s transfer followed all LHSAA eligibility requirements—including one year of ineligibility for any student who transferred to another school outside of their athletic zones.
Jackson sought equitable relief in the district court, including a temporary restraining order that would allow him to play basketball at Ponchatoula High School. In January 2023, the district court granted the temporary restraining order, finding that the language of the desegregation order in effect at the time could potentially have “a chilling effect upon achieving student assignment improvements and final unitary status.”
In April 2023, the district court modified the athletic eligibility provision of the desegregation order in the opinion, which is now being appealed by the plaintiffs. That modification stated that:
“High school interscholastic athletic eligibility shall be governed by rules of the Louisiana High School Athletic Association with the following exceptions:
(A). M-to-M or Diversity transfer, magnet transfer and academic transfer students, students enrolled under the joint custody provisions in Paragraph 5 of Rec. Doc. 876, students enrolled in a school pursuant to the transfer option in Paragraph 1(H) of Rec. Doc. 876, and students enrolled in school pursuant to the transfer option in Paragraph 6 of Rec. Doc. 876, regardless of grade level at the time of transfer, shall be eligible to participate in all interscholastic athletic programs in the year of the initial transfer.
(B). M-to-M or Diversity transfer, magnet transfer and academic transfer students, students enrolled under the joint custody provisions in Paragraph 5 of Rec. Doc. 876, students enrolled in a school pursuant to the transfer option in Paragraph 1(H) of Rec. Doc. 876, and students enrolled in a school pursuant to the transfer option in Paragraph 6 of Rec. Doc. 876 electing to return to their sending or home student attendance zone school shall be immediately eligible to participate in all interscholastic athletic programs.”
Because of this amendment, “students who utilize any transfer option available under the desegregation orders are immediately eligible for athletics in their new schools and are no longer required to sit out for one year as otherwise required by LHSAA rules,” according to the appeals court. “Several days after issuing the opinion, the district court also issued an order that dismissed as moot plaintiffs’ motion for injunctive relief.
The latter ruling led to the plaintiffs’ appeal that “the relief he has obtained up to this point is insufficient.”
The appeals court disagreed:
“The newly modified desegregation order ensures that Jackson, and all other African American students subject to the desegregation orders, will have immediate athletic eligibility in their new schools after utilizing any transfer option available under the desegregation orders. The district court considered plaintiffs’ issues and ruled in their favor. As a result, no additional injunctive relief is necessary and the plaintiffs’ request for additional injunctive relief is moot. In any event, plaintiffs have failed to brief, and therefore waived, any other issues.”
The district court elaboration on this was significant. It wrote:
“It is important to state that plaintiff-student’s M&M transfer from Hammond High School to Ponchatoula High School was approved on June 13, 2022. He received the Official LHSAA Eligibility Response Form on October 20, 2022, stating that he was “ineligible for varsity & sub-varsity [sports.].” The principal of Ponchatoula High School sought an appeal on October 26, 2022, but plaintiff does not indicate any outcome. The basketball season started on November 15, 2022, and plaintiff filed the motion for a TRO on December 11, after eleven games had passed. Plaintiff’s counsel on the subject motion appears therefore to have had ample time to request a TRO prior to now. There is no allegation that after missing two-thirds of the season that the student would even be afforded the opportunity to play in one of the remaining games.”
M.C. Moore et al. v. Tangipahoa Par. Sch. Bd. et al.; 5th Cir.; No. 23-30328; 12/5/23
Opinion can be found here: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/23/23-30328.0.pdf
