Tiffany v. Ariz. Interscholastic Ass'n, Inc.
726 P.2d 231, 1986 Ariz. App. LEXIS 573, 151 Ariz. 134 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Participation in high school interscholastic athletics is not a constitutionally protected property or liberty interest under the Due Process Clause unless a student can demonstrate that exclusion causes serious damage to their future opportunities for higher education and employment.
Facts:
- John Tiffany, a student with a learning disability, was held back in kindergarten and first grade based on decisions made by his teachers and school administrators.
- As a result of being held back, Tiffany turned nineteen years of age on August 5, 1983, just before the start of his senior year at St. Mary's High School.
- The Arizona Interscholastic Association (AIA), a voluntary association of Arizona high schools, had a bylaw making any student who turned nineteen before September 1 ineligible for interscholastic athletics.
- The AIA's bylaws also contained a provision allowing its Executive Board to grant a hardship waiver to an eligibility rule in circumstances beyond the control of the student or parent.
- Tiffany applied for a hardship waiver, stating that athletics provided friendships, discipline, and motivation for him to maintain his grades.
- The AIA Executive Board, following an unwritten policy of never granting exceptions to the nineteen-year-old rule, denied Tiffany's request for a waiver.
- The parties stipulated that the circumstances leading to Tiffany's age for his grade level were beyond his or his parents' control.
Procedural Posture:
- John Tiffany filed a complaint in an Arizona trial court against the Arizona Interscholastic Association, Inc. (AIA).
- Tiffany sought to enjoin the AIA from disqualifying him from athletics and requested a declaration that its actions were an unconstitutional denial of due process.
- The trial court granted a preliminary injunction, which allowed Tiffany to participate in athletics during his senior year.
- After a final judgment was entered, the trial court ruled that AIA's board acted 'unreasonably, capriciously and arbitrarily' and that Tiffany possessed a constitutionally protected interest in playing high school sports.
- The trial court awarded Tiffany $2,500 in attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
- The AIA, as appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Arizona Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court.
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 high school athletic association's rule, which deems a student ineligible to participate in sports due to turning nineteen before the school year, violate the student's procedural due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Meyerson, Judge.
No, the athletic association's rule does not violate the student's due process rights. While a student has a constitutionally protected property interest in public education itself, participation in a single component like interscholastic athletics does not rise to a constitutionally protected interest. Citing Goss v. Lopez, the court reasoned that due process protections apply to the overall educational process, not to every separate component. The court distinguished Tiffany's situation from rare cases where athletics were deemed 'vital and indispensable to a college scholarship,' finding his interests in enjoyment, friendship, and academic motivation to be 'mere subjective expectations.' Because Tiffany failed to demonstrate that his exclusion from sports would cause serious damage to his 'later opportunities for higher education and employment,' his interest does not warrant the safeguards of the due process clause. However, the court separately held that the AIA acted unlawfully under state administrative law by failing to follow its own bylaws, which required it to exercise discretion in considering hardship waivers, rather than applying a blanket policy of denial.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the prevailing judicial view that participation in extracurricular activities like high school sports is a privilege, not a constitutionally protected right, absent extraordinary circumstances. The court establishes a high bar for students challenging eligibility rules on due process grounds, requiring proof of a tangible, significant harm to future educational or career prospects, rather than just the loss of the experience itself. The case also highlights an important distinction: an organization's actions can be unlawful under state administrative law for failing to follow its own procedures, even if those actions do not rise to the level of a federal constitutional violation. This provides an alternative legal avenue for challenging such decisions without having to meet the stringent requirements of a due process claim.
