Brennan v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR UNIV. OF LOUISIANA SYSTEMS
691 So.2d 324, 95 La.App. 1 Cir. 2396, 1997 La. App. LEXIS 873 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state university's enforcement of NCAA drug testing rules does not violate a student-athlete's state constitutional rights to privacy or due process, as athletes have a diminished expectation of privacy and participation in intercollegiate athletics is a privilege, not a constitutionally protected property or liberty right.
Facts:
- John Patout Brennan was a student-athlete at the University of Southwestern Louisiana (USL), a state university.
- As a condition of participation, USL required its athletes to consent to and participate in the National Collegiate Athletic Association's (NCAA) drug testing program.
- Brennan signed an NCAA drug testing consent form, affirming his awareness of the program.
- Prior to one such test, Brennan ingested nutritional supplements, consumed alcohol, and engaged in sexual activity.
- Brennan subsequently provided a urine sample for a random NCAA drug test and tested positive for exogenous testosterone, with a testosterone-to-epitestosterone (T/E) ratio well above the NCAA's permitted limit.
- Brennan claimed the result was a 'false positive' caused by the supplements and his other activities, not by intentional steroid use.
- After Brennan's administrative appeals to the NCAA were denied, USL complied with NCAA regulations and suspended him from intercollegiate athletic competition for one year.
Procedural Posture:
- John Patout Brennan filed suit against the Board of Trustees for University of Louisiana Systems in a Louisiana state trial court, seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of his one-year athletic suspension.
- The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) successfully moved to intervene in the case as a defendant.
- Following a trial, the trial court judge granted the preliminary injunction in Brennan's favor, ruling that the drug test results were flawed.
- The Board of Trustees and the NCAA, as appellants, appealed the trial court's grant of the injunction to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state university's enforcement of an NCAA-mandated suspension, based on a positive drug test for a banned substance, violate a student-athlete's rights to privacy and due process under the Louisiana Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Lottinger, C.J.
No, a state university's enforcement of an NCAA-mandated suspension based on a positive drug test does not violate a student-athlete's state constitutional rights to privacy and due process. The court first reversed the trial court's factual finding that the drug test was flawed, holding that expert testimony established the test was valid and Brennan's elevated T/E ratio was consistent with exposure to testosterone. Addressing the constitutional claims, the court found that while USL is a state actor, Brennan's claims fail on the merits. Citing Hill v. NCAA, the court reasoned that student-athletes have a diminished expectation of privacy due to the nature of athletics (communal undress, physical exams, etc.), and this diminished interest is outweighed by the university's significant interests in safeguarding fair competition and protecting athlete health and safety. Furthermore, the court held that participation in intercollegiate athletics is a privilege, not a property or liberty right, and is therefore not protected by due process safeguards. Finally, the court rejected Brennan's tort claim that USL had a duty to specifically warn against nutritional supplements, finding that the general warnings provided were sufficient and that modern university students are considered adults responsible for their own actions.
Dissenting - Fogg, J.
The appeal should be dismissed as moot. The dissent argues that the court should not have reached the merits of the case. Brennan's sole request was for an injunction to prevent the enforcement of his athletic suspension. By the time the case reached the appellate court, Brennan had exhausted all of his intercollegiate athletic eligibility, meaning the one-year suspension had effectively run its course and he could no longer play regardless of the court's decision. Because the activity sought to be enjoined had already occurred and the need for relief had ceased, there was no longer a live, justiciable controversy for the court to resolve.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the legal principle in Louisiana that participation in intercollegiate athletics is a privilege, not a constitutionally protected right, thereby limiting student-athletes' ability to bring due process claims related to eligibility. It aligns Louisiana with the majority of jurisdictions by adopting the 'diminished expectation of privacy' rationale for student-athletes, making it more difficult to challenge drug testing programs on privacy grounds. The ruling also reinforces the modern legal view that universities are not 'in loco parentis' (in the place of a parent) and that adult students bear primary responsibility for their own conduct, including understanding the risks associated with taking supplements under a strict liability drug-testing regime.
