If, as in Washington, Texas already exerts some influence and control in the business of private schools by accredting them or their curricula, I would think the private schools could make a case that their sports should be subject to the same kind of oversight via TASO. That however, could be a case of "be careful what you wish for."

It's possible, but I don't see that happening either--whereas not only is education acredited by the state, it is mandated, and extracurricular activities are not. The difference has been highlighted in several cases where protections afforded the general student body do not carry over to mandates where participants of activities are concerned.

I'm sure that must vary state to state. In Washington, by statute, school sanctioned activities, including sports, are, in part, defined as an extension of the classroom, and are governed by the state legislature acting through the Washington Interscholastic Activities Association.

Just to clarify...South Carolina has two systems. Private schools are allowed to join the South Carolina High School League (which every public school belongs to) if they want...however only three have choosen to do so. (The last time I looked).

The vast majority of private schools in South Carolina belong to SCISAA (South Carolina Independent Schools Athletic Association). Amazingly (sarcasm alert), a number (but not all) of the schools belonging to SCISAA were founded in 1969. Which (surprise, surprise) was the year South Carolina public schools (and athletics) finally became de-segregated. That's right South Carolina fought Brown vs. Board of Education for 15 years...even though Brown vs. Board of Education was a South Carolina case.

One of the private schools that belongs to the public school league, Bishop England, (catholic schoool in Charleston) has won a TON of championships in virtually everything but football. It has created a lot of controversy in that public school coaches complain that it is unfair because Bishop England can admit students from anywhere.

Uh, no, it wasn't. It was from Topeka, KS.

And along those lines, MN has open enrollment--any student can enroll in any secondary school, assuming the school has available room.

In Alabama, we have two individual Associations, the AHSAA, made up primarily of public schools, with some private school participation, and the
AISA, made up of independent schools. Private schools that participate in sports under the auspices of AHSAA must play up by two classifications over their actual student body size. I assume this was done to
"level" the playing field. This past season, the 5A football Championship was contested between Briarwod Christian (Birmingham) and St. Paul's (Mobile),
both private schools.

I will add my two cents of legal thought without having read any pleadings or the trial judge's order:

My two cents are this: I wouldn't immediately laught at the religious school's complaint. There is a pretty well known (in Constitutional Law Circles) case that involved high school athletics. It is known as the Brentwood Academy case.

In that case, Brentwood Academy (a private school) sued the Tennessee high school association (I don't recall its official name) because the Tennessee association had put the Academy on probation and barred them from the state football playoffs (as I recall) for illegally recruiting 8th graders.

Brentwood Academy sued alleging that the Association had violated their First Amendment Right to Free Speech. In order to win, Brentwood had to first prove that the Association was a "state actor". The reason they had to prove that is because a "private actor" (i.e. a non-governmental entity) can not violate anyone's first amendment rights. A state actor, however, can violate one's first amendment right (as the first amendment has been applied to the state's through the fourteenth amendment's due process clause).

Anyways, to the surprise of many, the US Supreme Court held that the Tennessee Association WAS a state actor, and thus said Brentwood Academy's suit could go forward (the Supreme Court sent the case back to the federal district court for a trial to see if the Association did, in fact, violate the Academy's First Amendment Rights).

This was a surprise because the US S.Ct. had previously held that the NCAA was NOT a state actor, but rather a private organization. But here, however, the Court said (among other things) that the Tennessee Association's membership was comprised of 86% public schools, that those schools used public money (taxes) to pay their membership dues to the association and that state employees (i.e. principals and superintendents) ran the Association. Thus the Association was a "state actor".

(As an aside: Years later...the Tennessee Association was found not to have violated Brentwood's 1st amendment right.) However, this case was a major case in expanding who and what is a "state actor".

Thus, to bring this home, while I don't know the merits of the Texas' religious school's claim that its equal protection rights were violated...I wouldn't laugh this case off in that I have no doubt that the Texas Association is a "state actor" subject to this lawsuit.

This is definitely a case I'll be on the lookout for if it is, in fact, appealed.

Does anyone know if this case was brought in State Court or Federal Court? (And it could be either...under our US Constitution State Courts are competent to adjudicate federal claims.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v...d_of_Education

I assume you weren't the valedictorian of your class.;)

No but I graduated in the top 2%.

Brown vs. Board of Education was 5 consolidated cases...Briggs vs. Elliot was the first and the one that started it all. It was the oldest case.

The Supreme decided to list Brown vs. Board of Education first...but Briggs vs. Elliot was FIRST. That is where the NAACP drew their first line in the sand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Briggs_v._Elliott

And, oh yeah, my thesis was on Brown vs. Board of Education and how it has failed.

And if you don't believe that is what the NAACP considers their first case...then your wrong. I went to the NAACP rally at the South Carolina state house on MLK day a few weeks ago...and the NAACP President recognized South Carolina as being where desegration became the law of the land.

In re-reading my first post...I realize that I just said "Brown vs. Board of Education"...and yes, that case, did independently arise in Topeka, KS. However, when saying "Brown vs. Board of Education" I was refering solely to the US S.Ct. opinion...which was an opinion issued in five cases...the first of which began in South Carolina.

Lawrence:

Thanks, I stand corrected. I got the impression that the schools were not seperated due to conversations with my friends in North Carolina.

MTD, Sr.

LawUmp:

Thanks, I stand corrected. I got the impression that the schools were not seperated due to conversations with my friends in South Carolina.

MTD, Sr.

This reminds of a bill I got from my attorney. I was involved in a suit with some contractors recently. We had both the law (they had not filed a "mechanics intent to lien" at the beginning of the job and then failed to file their suit within the 90 days of last appearing on the job as allowed by Washington law) and facts (they disappeared from the job without finishing it having pretty much "labored it out") on our side.

The contractors attorney, after receiving our response to their complaint, advised them to drop the suit, which they did.

Our attorney contacted me by phone with the news and gave me the total of what we owed him. I hand delivered the check.

A week later, the attorney sent me a letter suggesting that we close the file on a potential countersuit we discussed. I agreed and told him so via mail. Shortly after, I received an invoice from the attorney for $35.50. The service listed was "writing client a letter recommending closure of file."

I'm now wondering if I'll get another invoice for the time spent in sending me an invoice?