Alabama Governor Kay Ivey and House Speaker Nathaniel Ledbetter celebrated a decision by a Montgomery County Circuit Court judge that granted their motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) against an Alabama High School Athletic Association (AHSAA) rule on the Creating Hope and Opportunity for Our Students’ Education Act (CHOOSE Act), which would have required student athletes to sit out a year if they transferred to another school under the Act.
Specifically, the TRO prohibits the AHSAA from “enforcing any rule or policy which makes the acceptance of CHOOSE Act funds the sole determinative factor of eligibility for participation in interscholastic athletic events,” according to the Governor’s office.
The impetus for the legal controversy was reportedly a decision by the authors of the CHOOSE Act to remove an AHSAA rule that required student athletes, who transferred under the Act, to sit on the sidelines for one year before becoming eligible to participate in athletics.
“Early drafts of the CHOOSE Act explicitly protected AHSAA’s eligibility rules. However, the final version omits the word ‘rules,’ introducing ambiguity,” the AHSAA stated.
Regardless, the court noted the antidiscrimination provision in the CHOOSE Act, which reads: “Nothing [in the Act] shall affect or change the athletic eligibility of student athletes governed by the AHSAA, or similar association.”
The court went on to note that the plaintiffs demonstrated: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits, (2) irreparable harm in the absence of a TRO, (3) no adequate remedy at law, and (4) that the hardships on AHSAA from the TRO will not unreasonably outweigh the benefit to the plaintiffs from the issuance of the TRO.
The Governor’s office reacted to the ruling in a celebratory manner.
“Today’s order is a victory for common sense,” said Governor Ivey. “Every child deserves true choice in their education and that includes their right to participate in school athletics. The court’s decision restores fairness to the process which is, of course, the very basis of the CHOOSE Act. I will continue standing up for our parents and students to ensure the law is followed and that every child in Alabama has a fair chance to succeed in the classroom and in athletics.”
House Speaker Ledbetter added: “I am incredibly grateful that the court sided with Alabama’s student-athletes and restored their right to compete,” said Speaker Ledbetter. “The bottom line is that no person or entity’s opinion is greater than the rule of law. Every student deserves to have the opportunity to participate in athletics, and with this action, affected students can get off the sidelines and back into the game while we continue fighting to ensure a level playing field.”
The operative phrase in the CHOOSE Act was: “Nothing shall change or affect the athletic eligibility of student athletes governed by the (AHSAA) or similar association.”
The AHSAA responded to the ruling in a statement that reads in part, “We are disappointed the Circuit Court has granted a temporary restraining order that prohibits the AHSAA from enforcing its rule regarding financial aid specifically related to the CHOOSE Act. This temporary restraining order does not prohibit the AHSAA from enforcing all other eligibility rules including but not limited to the bona fide move rule and the overlapping school zone rule. All other AHSAA rules apply.”
Further, the “policy, established by our member schools, promotes competitive equity and deters recruitment.”
The underlying core arguments in the litigation are as follows:
Plaintiffs’ arguments
The lawsuit against the AHSAA was filed by Alabama Governor Kay Ivey and House Speaker Nathaniel Ledbetter. Their core arguments include:
- The AHSAA’s rule is an unfair penalty against student-athletes who transfer under the CHOOSE Act.
- It contradicts the intent and wording of the new state law, which allows eligible families to use state funding for private school tuition or other educational options.
- Some lawmakers involved in drafting the CHOOSE Act contend that the law was specifically intended to prevent negative consequences for athletes.
AHSAA’s defense
The AHSAA has defended its rule by arguing the following:
- Its policy requiring a one-year sit-out period for transferring students who receive financial aid is a long-standing regulation.
- The association views this rule as a way to ensure fairness and consistency for all member schools and to discourage students from transferring for athletic advantages.
- The AHSAA’s lawyers have indicated that they believe the CHOOSE Act’s final wording is ambiguous and supports their interpretation.
If the plaintiffs are successful, some observers believe it will create chaos for high school athletics in the state: https://www.alreporter.com/2025/09/09/court-ruling-on-ahsaa-choose-act-rule-has-the-potential-for-chaos/
