National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Yeo
114 S.W. 3d 584, 2003 WL 21554340 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state university must provide a student-athlete with notice and an opportunity to be heard before making an eligibility determination that could damage the athlete's pre-existing, world-class reputation, as such a reputation constitutes a protected liberty interest under the Texas Constitution's due course of law provision.
Facts:
- Joscelin Yeo, a citizen of Singapore, was a world-class swimmer with an established international reputation, having competed in two Olympic games before attending college in the United States.
- In 1998, Yeo enrolled at the University of California at Berkeley (Cal-Berkeley) and competed on its swim team for two years.
- In 2000, Yeo transferred to The University of Texas at Austin (UT-Austin) to follow her coach.
- During the Fall 2000 semester, Yeo competed in the Sydney Olympics. UT-Austin obtained an 'Olympic waiver' from the NCAA, allowing her to receive financial aid without being enrolled in any courses that semester.
- After sitting out the 2000-2001 academic year to satisfy the NCAA's one-year residency requirement for transfers, Yeo began competing for UT-Austin in the Fall of 2001.
- Following a complaint from Cal-Berkeley, the NCAA staff issued an interpretation that Yeo's non-enrollment during the Fall 2000 semester meant she had not satisfied the residency requirement, despite the Olympic waiver.
- On November 26, 2001, based on the NCAA's interpretation, UT-Austin declared Yeo ineligible without notifying her or giving her an opportunity to participate in the decision.
Procedural Posture:
- Joscelin Yeo filed a declaratory judgment action against The University of Texas at Austin (UT-Austin) in a Texas district court (trial court), seeking a temporary restraining order (TRO).
- The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) attempted to intervene in the action.
- The trial court granted Yeo's motion to strike the NCAA's intervention.
- The trial court granted the TRO, which allowed Yeo to compete in the 2002 NCAA championship.
- The NCAA's subsequent petition for a writ of mandamus to the intermediate appellate court was denied, and UT-Austin's interlocutory appeal of the TRO was dismissed.
- Following a hearing on the merits several months later, the trial court granted a permanent injunction preventing UT-Austin from retroactively declaring Yeo ineligible.
- The NCAA appealed the trial court's order striking its intervention, and UT-Austin appealed the permanent injunction to the Texas Court of Appeals.
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 decision to declare a student-athlete ineligible, without providing notice or an opportunity to be heard, violate the athlete's due course of law rights under the Texas Constitution when the athlete has a significant, pre-existing international athletic reputation?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Mack Kidd
Yes, a state university's unilateral decision to declare a student-athlete ineligible without notice violates her due course of law rights when she has a pre-existing, established athletic reputation. The court's analysis proceeds in two steps. First, it determines that Yeo possessed a protected liberty interest. Unlike typical student-athletes who do not have a constitutional right to participate in extracurriculars, Yeo's case is unique. Her world-class reputation was established in the international arena and at the Olympics before she began competing in the NCAA. This pre-existing reputation, which has significant professional and financial value, is a liberty interest analogous to the professional reputation of the medical student in University of Texas Med. School v. Than. The court narrowly confines this holding to the specific facts, stating it does not extend to every intercollegiate athlete. Second, the court determines what process was due. At a minimum, due course of law requires notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard. UT-Austin failed to provide this when it unilaterally declared Yeo ineligible without her knowledge or input. This decision foreclosed other options, such as seeking a waiver from Cal-Berkeley (which she later obtained herself once she hired a lawyer), and relegated her to seeking 'grace' from the NCAA for a violation she did not cause. The university should have provided her with notice and an opportunity for an 'informal give-and-take' before making its determinative decision.
Analysis:
This decision carves out a narrow but significant exception to the long-standing rule that students do not have a constitutionally protected interest in participating in extracurricular activities. By recognizing a world-class athlete's pre-existing reputation as a protected liberty interest, the court opens the door for other high-profile athletes to assert due process claims against state universities in eligibility disputes. However, the court's repeated emphasis on the 'unique fact pattern' and Yeo's pre-NCAA international stardom suggests the precedent will be limited to elite athletes and is unlikely to apply to the vast majority of student-athletes. The case underscores the duty of state actors, including public universities, to provide fundamental procedural fairness when their decisions can severely impact an individual's established reputation and career prospects.
