ILNews

Justices split over IHSAA athlete eligibility ruling

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana’s justices couldn’t agree on whether they should even rule on a case involving an athlete’s eligibility in high school when the girl is now playing college basketball.

Justices Brent Dickson and Robert Rucker argued in Indiana High School Athletic Association v. Jasmine S. Watson, No. 71S03-1002-CV-119, that the Indiana Supreme Court should dismiss the appeal because athlete Jasmine Watson has graduated from high school. They also pointed to recent legislation that requires challenges to Indiana High School Athletic Association eligibility rulings to be decided by an independent case review panel.

“A majority of this Court prefers not only to take jurisdiction but also to apply this Court‘s recent decisions that virtually immunize IHSAA decisions from meaningful judicial review. I strongly disagree,” wrote Justice Dickson in his dissent. “The IHSAA‘s rules and enforcement practices impinge upon parental authority and responsibility to select the schools most appropriate for the interests and talents of their children.”

Watson played basketball and ran track at Elkhart Memorial High School and sought a transfer to play on South Bend Washington High School’s teams after her family moved to South Bend. Watson was being recruited by an Amateur Athletic Union coach to transfer so she would be able to compete for a high school championship. Her mother also had her work-hours reduced and her home entered foreclosure, so she wanted to move to South Bend to be closer to family.

Elkhart Memorial refused to approve her transfer, arguing she moved primarily for athletic reasons. The IHSAA assistant commissioner and a review committee found her to be ineligible. The review committee cited Elkhart Memorial’s coach’s descriptions of conversations he had with other coaches and his players regarding Watson’s comments about transferring. The IHSAA also found her family’s economic hardships weren’t the primary reason her family moved as Watson’s mother sought a rental home in South Bend before looking in Elkhart and claimed to not find anything affordable or suitable in Elkhart.

Watson’s mom sued on her behalf and the trial court granted a preliminary injunction preventing the IHSAA from enforcing its decision. The trial judge found the IHSAA disregarded evidence, and that it relied on hearsay statements. A split Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed.

The majority on the Supreme Court reversed the trial court and agreed with the Court of Appeals’ reasons as to why the appeal isn’t moot: if the IHSAA wins, then it could make Washington High School forfeit victories and money and the IHSAA has filed a counterclaim against the Watsons for damages, which hasn’t been resolved. Plus, the issues of families relocating because of financial issues will mostly likely come up again.

The majority disagreed with the trial court that the IHSAA’s decision was arbitrary and capricious. The trial court often pointed out the IHSAA’s version of events heavily relied on hearsay, but the Supreme Court has held that agency decisions may be based in part on hearsay, wrote Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard.

“Rather than inquiring whether substantial evidence existed to support the ruling, the court substituted its own judgment for the IHSAA’s. It rejected the IHSAA’s assessment of several witnesses, concluded that the IHSAA incorrectly assessed evidence contrary to the ruling, and improperly discredited virtually all hearsay evidence,” he wrote.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT