Decision Could Alter Prep Sports

A Supreme Court decision that gives schools the right to sue high school athletic associations for violating a member’s civil rights will not affect California because schools here already have that right, according to two commissioners in the California Interscholastic Federation.

However, now that the case is back in the hands of the 6th U.S. District Court of Appeals, there is the potential for a far-reaching impact on recruiting rules and an athletic association’s power to enforce them.

“That is the part of this case that everyone is watching,” said Barbara Fiege, commissioner of the City Section.

The 5-4 ruling that was handed down Tuesday let a Tennessee private school sue the Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Assn. in a dispute over football recruiting.

A lower court had barred the civil-rights lawsuit, saying the athletic association had not acted on behalf of the government.

But Justice David H. Souter wrote for the court that “the pervasive entwinement of state school officials in the structure of the association” meant its actions should be considered government action.

The CIF, governing body for more than 1,200 schools in the state, does not consider itself a private association as the Tennessee group does, said Jim Staunton, commissioner of the Southern Section, the largest of the state’s 10 sections.

“We’ve always held that we are an actor on the part of the state . . .,” Staunton said. “We’re empowered by the legislature and as a result, we’re acting as a state agency.”

Fiege said her section is “a public entity,” because it is made up solely of schools in the Los Angeles Unified School District.

The Tennessee case began in 1997 after the athletic association put Brentwood Academy, a parochial school in Brentwood, Tenn., that has won nine state football championships, on probation for four years, banned it from the playoffs for two years and fined the school $3,000 for violating rules in recruiting football players.

Like the Southern Section, the Tennessee association bars members from using “undue influence,” to secure or retain a student for athletic purposes.

The school sued the association under a federal civil rights law, and a federal judge issued an order barring enforcement of a recruiting rule that prohibited coaches from talking to prospective student-athletes because it violated the school’s constitutional free speech.

The 6th Circuit Court reversed, saying the athletic association’s decision was not government action and therefore it could not be sued.

The Supreme Court said the appeals court was wrong. The association’s actions “should be treated as state action owing,” Souter wrote.

The free speech ruling is what the appellate judges will now consider.

“The recruiting issue scares me,” Staunton said. “It’s not educationally sound to use high school strictly as a vehicle for athletics.”

Staunton said the case probably will be a hot topic in March at the next CIF commissioners’ meeting.

“I’m sure we’re going to talk about it,” he said.

The Associated Press contributed to this story.