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. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  2. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  3. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  4. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  5. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

ADVERTISEMENT