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. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT