In a majority decision, the Mississippi Supreme Court ruled that a lower court in that state erred when it issued an injunction that prevented the Mississippi High School Activities Association (MHSAA) from imposing its ruling that a high school basketball player was ineligible to compete for the Hattiesburg High School (HHS) basketball team during the 2011-12 season.
While the decision by Forrest County Chancery Judge Deborah Gambrell is moot in some respects (the student is now a senior basketball player at the University of Georgia), the high court’s ruling does send a message to the lower courts in that state that they should not interfere with a decision by the MHSAA, a private non-profit organization in which membership was voluntary, unless the action is “predicated upon some legal or equitable claim that would, at some point, proceed to the merits,” according to the court. “Nowhere in its complaint did the high school allege a breach of contract, a tort, fraud, or any other legally cognizable claim.”
The student athlete in the case was Tiaria Griffin, initially a star basketball player at Lawrence County High School. At the beginning of her senior year, Tiaria and her brother Steven transferred to HHS. After MHSAA declared Tiaria and Steven ineligible to participate in athletics at HHS for the 2011-2012 season, Tiaria, Steven, and their mother filed a complaint for injunctive relief on September 30, 2011. They alleged, among other things, that MHSAA’s “actions in denying the minor plaintiffs eligibility for competition in athletic activities were arbitrary and capricious,” and that MHSAA “did not have any substantial basis to deny the minor plaintiffs eligibility for athletic activities.”
Also on September 30, 2011, Tiaria, Steven and their mother filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO), asking the court to enjoin MHSAA from “ruling and removing the minor plaintiffs from participation in competition as eligible student athletes at (HHS), until a full hearing is had on (the plaintiffs’) application for a permanent injunction.” On that same day, the court issued the TRO, enjoining MHSAA from “ruling the minor plaintiffs’ ineligible for competition in scholastic sport activities.”
After a flurry of motions, filed by both the plaintiffs and the MHSAA, the HHS filed its own complaint for injunctive relief on January 30, 2012. “HHS’s complaint is virtually identical to Tiaria and Steven’s complaint, including the damages alleged. HHS alleged that ‘MHSAA’s actions in denying the plaintiffs eligibility for competition in athletic activities were arbitrary and capricious,’ and that it did ‘not have any substantial basis to deny the minor Plaintiffs eligibility for athletic activities.’”
The judge in the lower court held “a five-day trial on HHS’s complaint in September 2012. She issued a detailed opinion and final judgment, in which she summarized all the trial testimony. Ultimately, she affirmed the issuance of the various preliminary injunctions and vacated the penalties MHSAA had levied against HHS during the litigation.”
MHSAA appealed to the federal court, arguing that HHS’s complaint was “an appeal of its eligibility decision and that it was entitled to an agency-like standard of review. As such, MHSAA argued, the (judge) could review her eligibility decision only to determine whether the decision was supported by substantial evidence, was arbitrary or capricious, was beyond its power to make, or violated some statutory or constitutional right of the affected party. MHSAA argued that the (judge) erroneously had conducted a de novo review of its administrative decision and had substituted her judgment in place of its own, in violation of the standard set forth above. HHS responded and argued that it was not appealing MHSAA’s decision, that MHSAA was not a state agency entitled to deference, and that the chancellor’s actions and ultimate conclusions were correct.”
The federal court decided that supplemental briefing “was necessary,” directing the parties to address the following question:
“If the court finds that the Mississippi High School Activities Association is not an administrative body and cannot be treated as an administrative agency, does the chancery court have jurisdiction over a suit challenging the decision of a private, voluntary association?”
The federal court ultimately found that the MHSAA is a private “non-profit organization in which membership is voluntary.
“As such, it is not a state board or administrative agency, and the common-law right of appeal to chancery court is therefore unavailable. The parties have pointed to no authority—and we cannot find any—that authorizes an appeal of right from the decisions of a voluntary, private organization.”
The chief justice, meanwhile, dissented, concluding that “the MHSAA had no substantial evidence to rule Tiaria ineligible to play basketball at HHS and that it thus breached its contract by this arbitrary and capricious action, and I would affirm the chancellor’s holding on this issue.”
Mississippi High School Activities Association, INC et al. v. Hattiesburg High School; S. Ct. Miss.; NO. 2013-CA-01214-SCT, 2015 Miss. LEXIS 520; 10/15/15
Attorneys of Record: (for appellants) James A. Keith, Holmes S. Adams, Richard Jarred Garner, Bernard Hess Booth, IV, Benjamin Blue Morgan. (for appellee) Percy W. Watson, Norman William Pauli, JR.
