Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

High School Sports Recruiting Limited (by Supreme Court)
Las Vegas Sun ^ | 21 Jun | Mark Sherman

Posted on 06/23/2007 6:25:35 AM PDT by xzins

High School Sports Recruiting Limited By MARK SHERMAN Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Friday night lights are lure enough for young football players, the Supreme Court said Thursday in a decision that upholds limits on high school sports recruiting.

The high court ruled in a dispute between a Tennessee athletic association and a football powerhouse, the private Brentwood Academy near Nashville.

The school challenged a rule of the Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association, which governs high school sports in the state. The association bars schools from contacting prospective students about their sports programs.

Games have rules, wrote Justice John Paul Stevens in the unanimous decision. "It is only fair that Brentwood follow them."

"Hard-sell tactics directed at middle school students could lead to exploitation, distort competition between high school teams and foster an environment in which athletics are prized more highly than academics," Stevens wrote.

Brentwood argued that the restriction violated its free-speech rights, even though it voluntarily joined the association.

The dispute arose from a letter that Brentwood's football coach sent to a dozen eighth-graders in 1997, inviting them to attend spring training at the school. The students already had been accepted and signed enrollment contracts for the fall at Brentwood but were not yet attending the school.

Brentwood coach Carlton Flatt, who stepped down as coach in December after 34 years, told the boys that equipment would be distributed and "getting involved as soon as possible would definitely be to your advantage." He signed the letter, "Your Coach."

In Tennessee, as in many other states, high school football is played on Friday nights. Some towns practically shut down as people stream to the game.

"It is a heady thing," Stevens said, for an eighth-grader to be contacted directly by a coach and invited to join a high school sports team.

He compared the case to one in which the court upheld a state bar association's limits on solicitations by lawyers. "The dangers of undue influence that exist when a lawyer chases an ambulance are also present when a high school coach contacts an eighth grader," Stevens said.

Brentwood Academy headmaster Curt Masters said at a news conference Thursday that school officials were disappointed the court classified Flatt's letter as a recruitment tool.

"We're still scratching our heads over why would you do that?" Masters said. "Why would you sanction a school for harmless communication about permitted activity when the kids or their parents had already clearly indicated their intent to come in writing?"

Brentwood, like the other 375 or so public and private schools in the association, remains free to send brochures, post billboards and otherwise advertise its sports programs, he said.

James Blumstein, a Vanderbilt University professor who had been assisting Brentwood Academy, called it a narrow application of the First Amendment.

"The risk down the road is for school choice, and the court wrote it very narrowly down for this particular circumstance," Blumstein said of Brentwood Academy's letters to the students.

The case had previously been before the Supreme Court. In 2001, the court ruled 5-4 in favor of Brentwood, saying the athletic association acted in a quasi-governmental capacity and could be sued.

A federal appeals court later ruled in favor of the school, saying the letter amounted to protected speech under the First Amendment. That ruling would prevent all high school associations from enforcing recruiting rules, lawyers for the state athletic association said.

"Whether it's vindication, we feel very happy with the ruling because by the ruling, it lets not only Tennessee know but also the high school associations across the nation that we still can enforce our rules," said Gene Menees, the Tennessee association's assistant director.

The NCAA, the National School Boards Association and the National Federation of State High School Associations backed the Tennessee athletic association, saying broad powers are needed to protect children by enforcing recruiting rules. The Bush administration also argued in support of the association, urging the high court to reverse the lower court decision.

Brentwood Academy had support from the National Women's Law Center, which worried about holding government accountable for gender discrimination. The Association of Christian Schools International and the National Association of Independent Schools also sided with Brentwood.

The case is Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Assn. v. Brentwood Academy, 06-427.


TOPICS: Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: athletics; highschool; recruiting; scotus
Games have rules, wrote Justice John Paul Stevens in the unanimous decision. "It is only fair that Brentwood follow them."

Pretty well sums it up for me. Private and parochial schools must follow recruiting rules of their sport. Change the rules if they don't like them.

1 posted on 06/23/2007 6:25:39 AM PDT by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; jude24; blue-duncan

I’m surprised this got to the Supreme Court. Are you?


2 posted on 06/23/2007 6:26:18 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain And Proud of It! Those who support the troops will pray for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins
With all the important legal issues that need to be cleared up...once and for all....the SCOTUS is ruling on high school football?!?!
3 posted on 06/23/2007 6:30:23 AM PDT by Gay State Conservative ("The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism."-Karl Marx)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative

That really struck me about this one. It seems a pretty easy response too....sports have rules, so follow them.

Or start your own association.


4 posted on 06/23/2007 6:31:53 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain And Proud of It! Those who support the troops will pray for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: xzins

If it got there as a result of a circuit split, not.


5 posted on 06/23/2007 6:33:01 AM PDT by drlevy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: xzins

I don’t care for Stevens’ moralizing, but good call. Even if the association is quasi-governmental, we have a long tradition that free speech has limits when dealing with children. We can restrict children from seeing certain kind of movies, restrict them from wearing t-shirts with nasty sayings while in school, and so forth.


6 posted on 06/23/2007 6:34:30 AM PDT by Our man in washington
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: drlevy88
A federal appeals court later ruled in favor of the school, saying the letter amounted to protected speech under the First Amendment. That ruling would prevent all high school associations from enforcing recruiting rules, lawyers for the state athletic association said.

What circuit handles Tennessee?

7 posted on 06/23/2007 6:34:57 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain And Proud of It! Those who support the troops will pray for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: xzins; P-Marlowe

A little - it’s an interesting 1A question, but seems like an odd case to grant certiorari to. My best guess is that the Sixth Circuit just got it wrong.


8 posted on 06/23/2007 6:36:21 AM PDT by jude24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Our man in washington

And schools aren’t total “free speech” zones, either.

Why not protest some other rule of the Tenn HS athlet assoc?

Why not protest 4 downs instead of 5 on a team’s possession? Why not protest 3 officials instead of 2 at a HS basketball game?

It’s silly, imho.


9 posted on 06/23/2007 6:37:32 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain And Proud of It! Those who support the troops will pray for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: xzins
I strongly support the free speech rights of individuals in the public square, but I have to say that an organization that you voluntarily join should be able to have rules of behavior that define the organization. I see this in the same category as a group like the Boy Scouts being allowed to prohibit promotion of theft, as it violates the Scouts Oath, or a church being allowed to prohibit an earth-worshipper from using church materials to explain how there is no “god the father”, only Mother Earth. If the Brentwood group feels that recruiting of 8th graders is a good idea, they can find other like-minded people, start another athletic association that allows it, and see if enough people support and make it viable. That’s the power of the marketplace of ideas at work.
10 posted on 06/23/2007 6:38:10 AM PDT by Kay Ludlow (Free market, but cautious about what I support with my dollars)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jude24

Does the Scotus have to rule if a circuit gets it wrong? Can’t they just tell them they got it wrong...do it over?


11 posted on 06/23/2007 6:38:54 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain And Proud of It! Those who support the troops will pray for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Does the Scotus have to rule if a circuit gets it wrong? Can’t they just tell them they got it wrong...do it over?

That's usually what SCOTUS does - tells them they got it wrong, here's why, and "remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion."

12 posted on 06/23/2007 6:46:30 AM PDT by jude24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Too bad that Justice Stevens is clueless that "nations have rules (constitutions), and it is only fair that Justices follow them." LOL.

Congressman Billybob

Latest article, "Duke is Not Off the Hook"

13 posted on 06/23/2007 6:53:30 AM PDT by Congressman Billybob (Please visit www.ArmorforCongress.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

LOL! I hadn’t seen that. Thanks for the chuckle.

Perhaps you could send him a brief to that effect. :>)

I’ll check out your article. They are always excellent.


14 posted on 06/23/2007 7:10:42 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain And Proud of It! Those who support the troops will pray for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: xzins

IF the association bans schools from recruiting “prospective” students, then fine; but why is it wrong for a school to send letters to already accepted students who are, by definition, no longer prospects? I’m not a lawyer, didn’t stay in a Holiday Inn last night, but this ruling makes no sense to me.


15 posted on 06/23/2007 8:12:17 AM PDT by miele man (Continually voting against iodine deficient libs for 42 years)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jude24; xzins; blue-duncan

Here’s the short version:

Brentwood had voluntarily joined TSSAA and agreed to abide by its rules.

The Supreme Court said the TSSAA action did not violate free speech rights.

Duh.

Unfortunately the Supreme Court opinion is filled with bluster and is almost unreadable. Why can’t the court just issue an opinion without pontificating for pages on end?

It took the Supreme Court 19 pages to state the obvious.

What is really scarry is how this thing managed to get to the Supreme Court TWICE!


16 posted on 06/23/2007 8:19:02 AM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: miele man; P-Marlowe
The association bars schools from contacting prospective students about their sports programs.

That's the HS rules in Tennessee. The court says it doesn't violate free speech to have to abide by the rules.

It is the ABOUT SPORTS that is a violation

17 posted on 06/23/2007 8:58:13 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain And Proud of It! Those who support the troops will pray for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
Brentwood had voluntarily joined TSSAA and agreed to abide by its rules. Brentwood is free to associate or disassociate. Anarchy would reign if joining an organization meant make your own rules.
18 posted on 06/23/2007 9:20:15 AM PDT by ricks_place
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative

With all the important legal issues that need to be cleared up...once and for all....the SCOTUS is ruling on high school football?!?!

Your right John Roberts has been a disappointment. Can’t seem to get the role and it’s improtance. Sad isn’t it. Maybe he is too young and immature. I think they should have chosen Sam Alito who is older and wiser.


19 posted on 06/23/2007 9:24:39 AM PDT by napscoordinator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator
Your right John Roberts has been a disappointment. Can’t seem to get the role and it’s importance. Sad isn’t it.

Is it the Chief Justice that determines what cases the court accepts and rejects? I thought it was a vote by the justices that determined that...although I certainly could be wrong.

20 posted on 06/23/2007 9:58:01 AM PDT by Gay State Conservative ("The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism."-Karl Marx)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Why don’t you re-read what my question is and then think about what I am asking.


21 posted on 06/23/2007 1:15:07 PM PDT by miele man (Continually voting against iodine deficient libs for 42 years)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative
When the SCOTUS is asked to hear a case (petition for a writ of certiorari) 4 Justices must vote in favor of hearing the case in order for it to get before the Court. The Chief Justice gets only 1 vote.

As for this decision, I agree that if join an organization then you agree to abide by its rules. I believe that next term, the SCOTUS will hear where the school involved is not a member of the sport association involved, but that association is attempting to enforce its recruitment rules against that school. The association's reasoning is that the school is within the association's geographical jurisdiction and so is bound by the association's recruitment rules.

22 posted on 06/23/2007 9:08:24 PM PDT by Repeal 16-17 ($5,000 for a piece of American Sovereignty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: miele man

You are a prospective student until the time you are actually a student.


23 posted on 06/24/2007 7:55:49 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain And Proud of It! Those who support the troops will pray for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Well, I suppose this is analagous to the definition of “is”.

If one has signed a contract to enter a school, then in my mind you are legally a “student and not a “prospective” recruit”. The “intention” is obvious. I suppose the justices hold a different view as do you. Still, my beef here is the fact that the school’s coach sent letters to student’s already in the system, not some student outside of the school.


24 posted on 06/24/2007 8:05:50 PM PDT by miele man (Continually voting against iodine deficient libs for 42 years)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: miele man

Since it’s high school, there is no preventing anyone from changing their minds. Actually, I think it’s the same with college....even when the prospect has signed a letter of intent. With high school, there is absolutely nothing binding a student to attend a particular school.


25 posted on 06/25/2007 4:14:02 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain And Proud of It! Those who support the troops will pray for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Kay Ludlow

So what is your feeling in the case of the NCAA trying to force schools like Florida State to stop using native American mascots? Are those schools grandfathered in, or should they have to either abide by the rule or join a new association?


26 posted on 06/25/2007 4:19:21 AM PDT by RightFighter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: RightFighter
They should follow the new rules or form a new association UNLESS they are required by some law to be a member of the organization. If they are compelled to be to be a member, allowing them to be grandfathered would be equitable.
27 posted on 06/25/2007 3:24:10 PM PDT by Kay Ludlow (Free market, but cautious about what I support with my dollars)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: xzins

government schools couldn’t compete so they ran to the courts. Typical.


28 posted on 06/25/2007 3:26:12 PM PDT by balch3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: balch3

I disagree. I think they just expected everyone to follow the rules.


29 posted on 06/25/2007 9:00:11 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain And Proud of It! Those who support the troops will pray for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: xzins

I guess the supremes don’t enough to do.


30 posted on 06/25/2007 9:01:10 PM PDT by herMANroberts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: herMANroberts

I do agree witht that. I’m still not sure why they would take a case like this.


31 posted on 06/25/2007 9:06:15 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain And Proud of It! Those who support the troops will pray for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson