*1 Sturrup, friend, B. his and next Sturrup Principal Lamount v. Mahan, H. Robert M. University High School, Eskew, of Phil Junior-Senior N. High
Commissioner Indiana School Athletic Association. January 21, 1974.] 174S14. Filed
[No. McCrea, Bloomington, appellant.
David of S. Bell, Bell, Harold J. E. Bell, Indianapolis, Mark Bell & High for Phil N. Eskew and Indiana School Athletic Asso- ciation. Snyder, Bunger, Corner,
Len E. Bunger, Harr &el Robert- son, Bloomington, for Robert Mahan. M. brought J. This action was on behalf of Warren
Hunter, Sturrup by legal guardian appointed against B. his Robert Mahan, M. principal University High Junior-Senior School, Bloomington, Eskew, Phil as Commissioner N. High Indiana School Athletic Association. Florida, Miami, Bloomington, Indiana, moved from summer, alleged “de brother, his due to live with moralizing home conditions” and detrimental eligi subsequently denied He was environment in Florida. high school bility at his new in athletics *2 rules Bloomington. ineligibility founded on Sturrup’s was These rules interpreted by defendants.2 of the IHSAA as are as follows:
IHSAA Rule student, “No student has been enrolled as a any participate in permitted in school, member shall be to any member inter-school contest a member of another as one school calendar he school for until has enrolled such been actually year, parents unless of such student the the change their the second school district. residence to eligible case, he was latter as as student will be school from which he withdrew.” Rule Sections member school 3—If a from “Section student transfers change actually parents
to another member school and his district, as shall be their he residence second school eligible he the school from which withdrew.” as he was in Change A student Residence. “Section 6—Unavoidable who, the death because of circumstances such as unavoidable necessary change resi- parents guardian, finds of the dence it to have in order one school district another Control, eligible home, may by the Board of be declared a state- a provided ment, principal each member files Control supporting evidence, Board with with the change necessary undue no proof that the was any way. If influence attached was legal agency evidence of submitted as is to be action residence, action should be taken unavoidable school.” the new prior enrollment in to the student’s following facts: discloses 1. The record drugs. (1) were involved with friends . Warrens’s using drugs. (2) athletes were Fellow study (3) could not at home. Warren parents (4) with lived a two-bedroom house Warren ten sisters. Warren’s (5) a heart condition. mother has explicitly Although refer to out-of-state trans- do not these rules 2. interpretation they given comprehend ferees, so as to a broad applied. transferees, so have been sought injunction, restraining preliminary de- Plaintiff declaring ineligible varsity him fendants from injunction preliminary by denied the trial athletics. court. appealed District, Appeals,
Plaintiff to the Court of Third by Judge judgment opinion where was reversed in an Hoffman, J., concurring, dissenting Staton, Sharp, J., opinion.
Although Sturrwp’s eligibility the issue of Warren has been granted passage time, mooted we have transfer in order to correct Ap- error fundamental in the Court of peals’ opinion. Appeals
The Court of concluded that the above-mentioned bylaws unconstitutionally IHSAA Sturrup’s burdened among fundamental spe- travel the states. More cifically, Appeals the Court of held that Warren guaranteed was denied laws *3 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court Appeals’ analysis constitutional can be summarized as follows:
The prevent Clause does not reasonable classifications bylaws created the State. The IHSAA con- meaning stitute State action the within of the 14th Amend- Usually, showing ment. a of reasonableness is sufficient to legislative a sustain or administrative However, classification. upon suspect the classification based is (race, criteria re- alienage) impinges upon ligion, or a fundamental right, mere not reasonableness will suffice. The burden shifts to the State compelling to demonstrate a State necessary interest and a relation between the classification and that interest. In this compelling the State interest scrutiny model applies. Sturrup exercising right fundamental among the travel states. State has failed to establish compelling bylaws’ State interest and necessary the relation of that Therefore, furtherance interest. deny equal protection Sturrup the of the laws. equal agree Appeals’ assessment of with Court
do We agree its methodology. However, we do not protection at bar. application the case pro- Amendment 14th Equal Protection Clause of the juris- any person “deny within its shall no state
vides that equal protection of the The thres- laws.” diction inquiry, equal protection of the laws whenever hold alleged denied, is there is is to have been whether group another. to one and not burden distributed the State protec equal If, if, exists, the treatment dissimilar triggered. applied Appeals analysis by the tion Court of is Otherwise, equal protection proceed no need there is existence of an violation analysis, because precluded. predicated Appeals largely The decision Court holdings Supreme Shapiro Court’s States United 600, and Thompson 22 L. Ed. 2d (1969), 394 U.S. v. L. 274. 405 U.S. Ed. 2d Blumstein Dunn v. requirements receiving welfare In those cases ground voting struck were down on and for benefits upon right impinged fundamental entirely Supreme justified Court was travel interstate. protection invoking methodology, not the standard legislative merely there was a classification and because involved, similarly but because those situ fundamental say, cases, similarly. That is to treated were not both ated sought realize some individuals benefits of voting Shapiro, Dunn) treated system (welfare in similarly differently situated. others than came from faced those who out-of-state were essence, *4 requirements, living those while the durational not. state were distinguished Shapiro clearly Dunn cases can be (those case, all bar. In this transferees
from subject transferring ineligibility, state) are and inter intra bring they can the stated themselves within of unless 12, 1, 22, exceptions to Rule and Rule Sections (actual parental residence cir- or unavoidable Shwpiro cumstances). In Dunn who came those penalized; out-of-state were designed against immigrants. expressly discriminate Here, no discrimination exists. foregoing
If, pursuant argument, con- we were to that clude denied giving unintended,
laws, meaning we would be an bizarre, even Equal Equal Clause. Protection Clause conjunction 2, read in 4, should be with Article of the United § Constitution which reads as States follows: “The privileges citizens each state shall be entitled to all and immunities of citizens in the several states.” Privileges “designed and Immunities Clause was to insure to a citizen of State A who ventures into B State the same
privileges enjoy.” which the citizens State B Toomer (1948), v. Witsell U.S. L. Ed. 1460, 1471, (emphasis added). moving An individual from State A to B is State “entitled under the Con Federal privileges stitution all the and immunities of citizens of that State; but under Constitution he can claim no more.” City Detroit v. Osborne 135 U.S. 34 L. Ed. 260, 262, (emphasis added). provisions these together,
When two read it becomes abundantly Equal clear that the Protection Clause mandates Any treatment. treatment which deviates from this constitutionally suspect. norm bar, case at if out- eligibility transferees of-state were denied years two transferring, compared year after to one for in-state trans- ferees, would unquestionably out-of-staters be the re- cipients unequal highly treatment. It is conceivable that provision such a would violative of both the Pro- Privileges tection and Immunities Clauses. On the other *5 eligi- granted instant hand, transferees if out-of-state transferring faced within state were bility, those while trans- one-year requirement, the in-state with a receiving equal protection of the less than would ferees Privileges Immunities Equal and and laws. received require treatment Clauses treatment. foregoing invalidity Notwithstanding appellant’s question argument, bylaws in nonetheless suffer infirmity. constitutional serious bylaws regarding objective the IHSAA transferee preserve integrity
eligibility ath- is to of interscholastic minimizing recruitment, proselyting, letics “jumping” reasons. believe school for athletic We practices are de that such at the level spicable should, possible, and odious and be eliminated eligibility any reasonable transferee method available. These bylaws reasonably objective. are related the above-stated designed say, they do, fact, That are in is to to and contribute goal. However, are of that realization broadly proscrip they sweep too in their unreasonable and, hence, Protection Clause of the violate the tion (Section 1) IHSAA Rules 12 14th Amendment. eligibility 6) (Sections limit to those who move of undue influence and to those parents free whose move their by “unavoidable circumstances” free of is necessitated undue transferring student-athletes, All other who cannot influence. bring categories, within one of above two themselves automatically opportunity to denied the are bylaws, year. period for athletics interscholastic essence, an irrebuttable conclusion that all create of law unscrupulous prac been the victims of other have transferees precisely sweep broadly, they the rules too tices. This where class—those move from one create an over-inclusive wholly reasons for unrelated to to another athletics together grouped those who have been recruited or who purported short, “jumped” athletic reasons. have for objective eligibility prevent transferee rules “jumping,” prac- their use of undue influence and school but eligibility severely tical effect limit the transferee is to general. penalize presently The rules as constituted a student- religious athlete who wishes to transfer for academic or legitimate Surely, reasons or number other reasons. denying eligibility way to such transferees no furthers objectives. IHSAA *6 reviewing
After the IHSAA the record proceedings, any we are unable to discern basis fact law declaring ineligible. Sturrup for Warren The record discloses following sequence uncontroverted facts and of events: Miami, Warren Blooming- Florida, moved ton, purpose Indiana. The uncontroverted of the move towas “demoralizing avoid and detrimental conditions” his home and school environment in Florida. Those conditions included living in a two-bedroom house people with twelve other and the wide-spread among peers use narcotics in Miami Pal- High metto School.
Warren’s brother, Lamount, person living an adult Bloomington, appointed legal by Warren’s Monroe guard- Circuit approved Court. School authorities ianship and University Warren enrolled at Junior-Senior High School. subsequently ineligible He was declared principal, school’s Mahan, Robert conferring after with Com- missioner Eskew. Q.
Rule 10 of the IHSAA Constitution and Bylaws reads as follows:
“Q. legal guardians 10. Are parents considered as IHSAA? guardians Legal the “A. may parents if considered as guardianship papers issued an authorized approved, court are submitted and stu- and if the living guardian. dent has been with the The Board of Control reserves to check and act the circumstances of guardianship all times.” recognizes loco doctrine of expressly provision This pro recognize However, did not the IHSAA parentis.3 Eskew, validity case at bar. Commissioner in the vision’s parentis examination, explained that loco upon direct . unavoid only . . applicable “other position took the change” The IHSAA satisfied. have been able con requirements” met and that were not “other that those parental qualify under the sequently had failed to Warren ex the unavoidable circumstances residence and distin ceptions. conceive of no rational reason for We can legal guardians with guishing parents and between natural Notwithstanding eligibility. Commis respect to transferee deny explanation, the IHSAA’s decision to sioner Eskew’s Sturrup eligibility evidence the absence —in arbitrary patently influence” —can be viewed of “undue be reserved. capricious, must C.J., concur; Arterburn, DeBruler, Prentice, JJ., Given opinion. dissents with Opinion
Dissenting always temptation for court C.J. There is Arterburn, litigants good party it better what is think that knows *7 legislature body or which fixes rules than administrative the opinion involving previous the same of conduct. As I said type question here, as judges,
“We are not school members athletic offi- board or substituting judgment cials. that We should avoid our parties possessing special knowledge school officials and conditions. We, not sit judges, as should board.” Community Corp. School
Hass v. South Bend 259 530, (dissenting). E. 2d at 289 N. Ind. parentis loco to 3. An individual stand when he is assumes in. parenthood going legal obligations through legal without adoption. Am. Jr. 2d 88 and eases cited therein. formalities of legal guardian A § parentis. in loco 2d § Am. Jr. cases stands purposes, legal cited. all intents becomes For parent. child’s many exactly happening That is I think here. Too what is judges they other courts and feel how to know run my they frankly people’s better I business than do. admit ignorance operated to how school athletics should be problems long rule, law involved therein. As regulation appears make a reasonable classification objective obtain a lawful or result struck it should not be objective permit down. Here the of the rule that not does jump a student participant other competitive parents moving athletics without his with him appears meritorious to me to does be reasonable and This, “suspect not involve a classification.” term is latter nothing put proof more than a method used to burden party. “suspect on another To me the classification” occurs when a student moves to another school to in com- petitive parents moving athletics without his with him. That exactly the situation here. The evidence without shows dispute that the student’s brother wrote a letter in which he said: they “. . . If would have told he me this rule before (Plaintiff) started school I could have sent home him played where he could have ever. I what so difficulties money every help have could send home month
my parent (sic) out.” controlling This evidence shows that factor in move participation in athletics where he For went school. stated, the reasons I would affirm the trial court. The facts support it. Reported in E. 305 N. 2d 877.
Note. — Sumpter Johnnie Marie v. State of Indiana. January 22, 1273S261. Filed
[No. 1974]