Indiana High School Athletic Ass'n v. Carlberg Ex Rel. Carlberg
694 N.E.2d 222, 1997 WL 781628 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A high school athletic association's rule limiting the varsity eligibility of a student who transfers schools without a corresponding change in parental residence is not arbitrary and capricious and does not violate constitutional equal protection or due process guarantees. Such a rule is a reasonable means of deterring athletically motivated transfers, and participation in interscholastic athletics is not a fundamental right.
Facts:
- Jason Carlberg spent his freshman year at Brebeuf Preparatory School, where he was a member of the varsity swim team.
- For academic reasons, Carlberg transferred to Carmel High School for his sophomore year.
- Carlberg's parents did not change their permanent residence when he transferred schools.
- The Indiana High School Athletic Association (IHSAA) acknowledged that Carlberg's transfer was for academic purposes and not primarily for athletic reasons or as a result of undue influence.
- Pursuant to its 'Transfer Rule,' the IHSAA declared Carlberg had only limited eligibility, meaning he could not participate on a varsity athletic team for 365 days following his enrollment at Carmel High School.
Procedural Posture:
- Jason Carlberg exhausted his administrative remedies with the IHSAA, including a hearing before its Executive Committee, which denied his appeal.
- Carlberg sued the IHSAA and Carmel High School in an Indiana trial court.
- The trial court found in Carlberg's favor, ruling that the IHSAA's decision was arbitrary and capricious and unconstitutional, and issued an injunction allowing him to participate in varsity athletics.
- The IHSAA, as appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Indiana Court of Appeals, with Carlberg as appellee.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding the IHSAA's Transfer Rule was unconstitutionally overbroad under existing precedent.
- The IHSAA petitioned for transfer to the Indiana Supreme Court, which the court granted.
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 the Indiana High School Athletic Association's 'Transfer Rule,' which limits a student's varsity athletic eligibility for one year after transferring schools without a change in parental residence, constitute an arbitrary and capricious action or violate the student's constitutional rights when applied to a student who transferred for undisputed academic reasons?
Opinions:
Majority - Sullivan, J.
No, the IHSAA's Transfer Rule is not arbitrary and capricious and does not violate the student's constitutional rights. Under Indiana common law, the rule is a reasonable deterrent to athletically-motivated transfers, as conducting a factual inquiry into the motivation for every transfer would be prohibitively burdensome. Constitutionally, because there is no fundamental right to participate in interscholastic athletics, the rule is subject to and survives rational basis review under the federal Equal Protection Clause and is reasonably related to inherent class distinctions under the state's Privileges and Immunities Clause. The court expressly overruled its prior decision in Sturrup v. Mahan to the extent it incorporated an 'overbreadth' analysis into federal equal protection jurisprudence. The court also upheld the IHSAA's 'Restitution Rule,' finding it was not arbitrary or capricious for the association to rectify competitive inequities that occur when an ineligible athlete participates under a court order that is later reversed.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Dickson, J.
Yes, the application of the Transfer Rule in this case is arbitrary and capricious and violates the state constitution. It is fundamentally arbitrary to enforce a rule designed to prevent athletically-motivated transfers against a student whom the IHSAA concedes did not transfer for athletic reasons, which is contrary to the rule's stated purpose of prioritizing education. Furthermore, the rule violates the Indiana Constitution's Privileges and Immunities Clause by creating disparate treatment for student-athletes who transfer compared to students who transfer for other specialized programs like drama or debate, without a justification based on inherent differences. The 'Restitution Rule' is also arbitrary and capricious as it punishes innocent teammates and the school for complying with a valid court order.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the judicial review of IHSAA actions in Indiana by establishing a two-tiered standard. For student challenges, courts will apply an 'arbitrary and capricious' standard analogous to administrative agency review, maintaining oversight while still being highly deferential. For member school challenges, an even more deferential 'voluntary association' standard applies, limiting judicial interference. By expressly overruling Sturrup v. Mahan's overbreadth analysis, the court aligned Indiana's federal equal protection doctrine with mainstream federal law, making it much more difficult to challenge facially neutral eligibility rules on constitutional grounds and granting athletic associations greater authority to enforce them.
