Church vs State

[lawump]

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.)

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by lawump

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.

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

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

[lawump]

Originally Posted by GarthB

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.

[lawump]

Originally Posted by lawump

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 NCAAP 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.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by lawump

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.

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by SAump

The question is simple. Why shouldn't his school be allowed to play in the "UIL" which controls high school athletics for public school systems? After all, those parents who choose to send their children to private school are also paying taxes to support the same public school system which denies them equal access.

How should the high court decide?

I do not know the issues being discussed in this lawsuit. And I do not know the laws of each state and I am not a lawyer.

My state has had private and public schools playing against each other for over well over 30 years.

And I do not see why this would be any different than Notre Dame, Stanford, Boston College or Duke playing the Michigan, Florida, North Carolina and UCLA teams of the college world. And from what I understand most HS associations do not separate the private schools from the public schools in any competition.

Peace

[dash_riprock]

On Long Island, Catholic schools have their own league, but they will often play non-league scrimmages against public schools (at least in baseball). The CHSAA has adopted a "wood bat only" policy (we love that), so in those games, by mutual agreement, it will be metal bats vs. wood bats.

[canadaump6]

Hey SAump just out of curiosity, what does the SA stand for?

[SAump]

Originally Posted by canadaump6

Hey SAump just out of curiosity, what does the SA stand for?

San Antonio, TX.

The minister lost his lawsuit at the local level against the Texas Education Agency and the University Interscholastic League which control public school athletics across the state. He has deep pockets and would like another opinion from a higher court. Many believe the case may reach the state's highest court. I am not privy to the legal system and only provide general info about the case as reported in the media.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by SAump

I ask that you remain calm and reasonable and hear my question before you slam "the door" back in my face. I bring this question up before a group of umpires for discussion. I apologize if this encroachment upon your civil liberties causes any personal discomfort.

A wealthy televangelist owns a very large privately funded school. He doesn't believe it is fair that his students compete in the same "league" with much smaller private schools in the local area. They win their division in every sport every year. Sometimes, even the JV squad manages to take 2nd place. There are other large private schools much further away but travel restrictions prevent those schools from competing outside of state competition.

This wealthy minister is suing the state of Texas for equal protection under the law. The state of Texas has always practiced a sort of seperation between church and state {eg. abolish school prayer}. In high school, there has always been a distinct seperation between private and public school systems with two distinct governing bodies set up for high school athletics.

The question is simple. Why shouldn't his school be allowed to play in the "UIL" which controls high school athletics for public school systems? After all, those parents who choose to send their children to private school are also paying taxes to support the same public school system which denies them equal access.

How should the high court decide?

I could probably give you an answer but I need a bit further info; I'm not familiar with Texas interscholastic activities--I assume that UIL is the governing body in the state. Does it have two subordinate groups, with non-religious schools playing in one, and religious schools in the other, or does it simply deny certain schools membership?

FWIW, Minnesota has one league, and almost all schools participate in it. Schools have the option of not being in MSHSL, but since just about every school participates in it, there is little benefit to not being a member.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by Matt

I could probably give you an answer but I need a bit further info; I'm not familiar with Texas interscholastic activities--I assume that UIL is the governing body in the state. Does it have two subordinate groups, with non-religious schools playing in one, and religious schools in the other, or does it simply deny certain schools membership?

FWIW, Minnesota has one league, and almost all schools participate in it. Schools have the option of not being in MSHSL, but since just about every school participates in it, there is little benefit to not being a member.

Texas Association of Private and Parochial Schools (TAPPS) is the other governing body. I have no clue how the groups operate. I know the TEA has legislative authority over private and charter school academic performance. I believe the TEA supports the UIL position in this matter and would believe yes is the answer to your question. The largest TAPPS schools from Houston, Dallas and San Antonio compete in state competition each year. Kinda like taking your sister to homecoming. These schools want a chance to knock off several Texas public high school football juggernauts in the super 5A division.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by SAump

Texas Association of Private and Parochial Schools (TAPPS) is the other governing body. I have no clue how the groups operate. I know the TEA has legislative authority over private and charter school academic performance. I believe the TEA supports the UIL position in this matter and would believe yes is the answer to your question. The largest TAPPS schools from Houston, Dallas and San Antonio compete in state competition each year. Kinda like taking your sister to homecoming. These schools want a chance to knock off several Texas public high school football juggernauts in the super 5A division.

Judging by the name TAPPS (I'm using that as my defense later,) the delineation is not religion per se, but whether a school is public or not. If this is the case, then the minister really doesn't have much shot at a case based on equal protection--funding source does not make one a member of a protected class.

OTOH, if the correlation between a schools being private and schools being religious is close to 1, then the case could be raised that it is de facto delineation based on religion, and he might have a bit higher chance at succeeding. However, I don't see a court stating that access to particular interscholastic opponents is a right or privilege under the 14th Amendment.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by Matt

Judging by the name TAPPS (I'm using that as my defense later,) the delineation is not religion per se, but whether a school is public or not. If this is the case, then the minister really doesn't have much shot at a case based on equal protection--funding source does not make one a member of a protected class.

OTOH, if the correlation between a schools being private and schools being religious is close to 1, then the case could be raised that it is de facto delineation based on religion, and he might have a bit higher chance at succeeding. However, I don't see a court stating that access to particular interscholastic opponents is a right or privilege under the 14th Amendment.

If in Texas, as in Washington, the state exercises some influence and control in the business of private schools by accrediting them, the private schools should be able to make some argument that that should extend to school sports via TASO.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by Matt

Judging by the name TAPPS (I'm using that as my defense later,) the delineation is not religion per se, but whether a school is public or not. If this is the case, then the minister really doesn't have much shot at a case based on equal protection--funding source does not make one a member of a protected class.

OTOH, if the correlation between a schools being private and schools being religious is close to 1, then the case could be raised that it is de facto delineation based on religion, and he might have a bit higher chance at succeeding. However, I don't see a court stating that access to particular interscholastic opponents is a right or privilege under the 14th Amendment.

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."

[Matt]

Originally Posted by GarthB

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 privae 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.