Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Ass'n v. Brentwood Academy
2007 U.S. LEXIS 8271, 168 L. Ed. 2d 166, 551 U.S. 291 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state-actor athletic association can enforce an anti-recruiting rule against a member school without violating the First Amendment, as the association's interests in preventing the exploitation of young athletes and promoting fair competition outweigh the school's speech rights, particularly when the school voluntarily agrees to abide by the association's rules.
Facts:
- The Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association (TSSAA) is a not-for-profit corporation that regulates interscholastic sports among Tennessee high schools.
- Brentwood Academy, a private school, is a voluntary member of the TSSAA.
- TSSAA rules prohibit member schools from using 'undue influence' to recruit middle school students for their athletic programs.
- In April 1997, Brentwood's football coach sent a letter to a group of eighth-grade boys inviting them to attend spring practice sessions before they had officially enrolled.
- The letter stated, 'getting involved as soon as possible would definitely be to your advantage,' and was signed 'Your Coach.'
- The students who received the letter had signed contracts indicating their intent to attend Brentwood but had not yet met the TSSAA's definition of 'enrolled.'
- All of the boys who received the letter attended at least some of the practice sessions, which TSSAA considered a violation of its antirecruiting rule.
Procedural Posture:
- Brentwood Academy sued TSSAA in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
- The District Court granted relief to Brentwood.
- TSSAA appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which reversed, holding that TSSAA was not a state actor.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari and, in Brentwood I, reversed the Sixth Circuit, holding that TSSAA's actions constituted state action.
- On remand, the case returned to the District Court, which again ruled in favor of Brentwood on the merits of its First Amendment and due process claims.
- TSSAA again appealed to the Sixth Circuit, which affirmed the District Court's judgment.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Sixth Circuit's decision.
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 high school athletic association's enforcement of a rule prohibiting member schools from recruiting middle school athletes violate the First Amendment? Furthermore, did the association's hearing process, which involved the consideration of ex parte evidence, violate the member school's procedural due process rights?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Stevens
No, the enforcement of the antirecruiting rule does not violate the First Amendment, and any procedural defect in the hearing was harmless. An athletic league's interest in enforcing its rules to prevent exploitation of children, maintain the primacy of academics, and promote fair competition justifies curtailing the recruiting speech of its voluntary members. The dangers of undue influence and overreaching present when a high school coach directly contacts an impressionable eighth-grader are significant. Furthermore, Brentwood voluntarily joined the TSSAA and agreed to abide by its rules. Applying a balancing test similar to that used for government employees, the TSSAA's interest in managing an efficient and effective league outweighs Brentwood's interest in this specific form of speech. Regarding due process, even if the board's consideration of ex parte evidence was improper, the violation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because Brentwood failed to demonstrate any prejudice or show how it would have altered its strategy.
Concurring - Justice Kennedy
No, the enforcement of the rule does not violate the First Amendment. While I agree with the judgment, the majority's reliance on Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Assn. is unnecessary and ill-advised. Ohralik established a narrow rule for in-person solicitation by lawyers and should not be expanded to this context, as doing so could imply a broader state power to regulate speech even outside of a consensual, contractual relationship. The proper basis for the decision is that Brentwood voluntarily joined the TSSAA and contractually agreed to abide by its rules, and the association has a legitimate interest in enforcing those rules among its members.
Concurring - Justice Thomas
No, the rule enforcement should be upheld. However, the Court's First Amendment analysis is a 'bizarre exercise' necessitated by its incorrect prior holding in Brentwood I that the TSSAA is a state actor. The proper course would be to overrule Brentwood I. Given that precedent, the application of the Pickering test is a stretch, and the plurality's application of Ohralik is 'outright wrong' for the reasons stated by Justice Kennedy. I concur only in the judgment to reverse the lower court.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that voluntary membership in a state-actor association, such as a high school athletic league, entails an agreement to accept reasonable limitations on constitutional rights, including free speech. The Court affirmed that such associations have a compelling interest in regulating conduct like student recruiting to ensure fairness and protect minors from exploitation. The fractured nature of the opinions, particularly the rejection of the Ohralik analogy by a majority of justices, indicates a reluctance to create broad categories of regulable 'coercive' speech, preferring a more context-specific balancing approach based on the voluntary relationship between the parties.
