GHSA Response To Motion For Emergency Hearing - Hall-1
GHSA Response To Motion For Emergency Hearing - Hall-1
responds to Plaintiff’s Motion for Emergency Hearing and Petition for Declaratory
Requests”) as follows:
FIRST DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s Requests fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and
both should therefore be dismissed. See Parents Against Realignment v. GHSA, 271
Ga. 114, 516 S.E.2d 528; GHSA v. Waddell, 248 Ga. 542, 285 S.E.2d 7; Smith v.
injunctive relief set forth in O.C.G.A. § 9-11-65 have not been met. Plaintiff has not
and therefore faces no potential immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage.
See Parents Against Realignment v. GHSA, 271 Ga. 114; GHSA v. Waddell, 248
Ga. 542; Smith v. Crim, 240 Ga. 390; Mitchell v. Louisiana High School Assoc.,
430 F2d 1155; Oklahoma High School Assoc. v. Bray, 321 F2d 269; and Scott v.
THIRD DEFENSE
Georgia have uniformly rejected such complaints against GHSA. Parents Against
Realignment v. Ga. High School Association, 271 Ga. 114; Ga. High School
Association v. Waddell, 248 Ga. 542; Smith v. Crim, 240 Ga. 390.1
1
Other courts in the United States have faced the question of complaints
brought by schools and students who were dissatisfied with the eligibility rules
promulgated and enforced by their state athletic associations. In the vast majority
of cases where the eligibility rules of other state athletic associations have been
challenged in the courts, the association’s decision has been upheld. See Scott v.
Kilpatrick, 286 Ala. 129, 132-33, 237 So.2d 652, 655 (Ala. Sup. Ct. 1970); Alabama
High School Athletic Association v. Scaffidi, 564 So.2d 910 (Ala. 1990); Ex parte
Alabama High School Athletic Association (In Re: The Jefferson County Board of
Education, et. al., v. Alabama High School Athletic Association, Jefferson County
-2-
FOURTH DEFENSE
Plaintiff has not been denied due process as such a claim requires deprivation
Smith v. Crim, 240 Ga. 390, 240 S.E.2d 884; Mitchell v. Louisiana High School
Association, 430 F.2d 1155, Oklahoma High School Athletic Association v. Bray
321 F.2d 269 and Scott v. Kilpatrick, 286 Ala. 129, 237 So.2d 652; Hamilton v.
CV-2011-2105, Ala. Supreme Court Case No. 1110131 (Order Nov. 3, 2011); Parker
v. Ala., 204 Ariz 42, 59 P.3d 806 (App. 2002); Steffes v. CIF, 176 Cal. App. 3d.
739, 222 Cal. Rptr. 355, Cal. App. 2d (1986); Wajnowski v. CAS, 1999 WL 1314971
(Conn. Super. Dec. 17, 1999); Griffin High School v. Illinois High School Assoc.,
822 F.2d 671 (7th Cir. 1987); Marino v. Waters, 220 So.2d 802 (La. App. 1 Cir.,
1969); Sanders v. LHSAA, 242 So.2d 19, La. App. 3 Cir. (1970); Genusa v. Holy
Cross College, Inc., 389 So.2d 908 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1980); Walsh v. LHSAA, 616
F.2d 152 (5th Cir. 1980) Writ Den., 449 U.S. 1124, 101 S. Ct. 939, 67 L.Ed, 2d 109
(1981); Bershback v. Grosse Pointe Schools, MHSAA, 154 Mich App 102, 397
N.W.2d 234 (1986); U.S. Ex Rel Missouri State High School Activities Association,
682 F.2d 154 (8th Circuit 1982); State Ex Rel Missouri State High School Activities
Association v. Romines, 37 SW3d 421; Albach v. Odle, 531 F.2d 983 (10th Cir.
1976); Crandall v. North Dakota High School Activities Association, 261 N.W.2d
921 (1978); Josephine County School District No. 7 v. Oregon School Activities
Association, 15 Or. App. 185, 515 P2d 431 (1973); Whipple v. Oregon School
Activities Association, 52 Or. App. 419, 629 P.2d 384; Pennsylvania Interscholastic
Athletic Assn, Inc. v. Greater Johnstown School Dist., 76 Pa. Cmwlth. 65, 463 A2d
1198 (1983); Revesz v. Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic Assn, Inc., 798 A.2d
830 (Pa. Cmwlth. Ct. 2002); Bruce v. South Carolina High School League et al., 189
S.E.2d 817 (1972); Simkins v. South Dakota High School Activities Association,
434 N.W.2d 367 (S.D. Sup. Ct. 1989); Hamilton v. Tenn. Secondary Sch. Ath. Assn.,
552 F.2d 681 (6th Cir. 1976); Tennessee Secondary School Assn. v. Cox, 425
S.W.2d 597 (Tenn. 1968); Hardy v. University Interscholastic League, 759 F.2d
1233 (5th Circuit 1985).
-3-
Tennessee Secondary School Assoc., 552 F.2d 681 (6th Cir. 1976); Hardy v.
RELEVANT FACTS
GHSA is a voluntary association of over 450 public and private high schools
within the State of Georgia and governs the eligibility of the approximately one-half
schools are organized by size into seven (7) classifications and then generally by
location into eight (8) regions each.2 Each of the sixty-four (64) regions elects a
members, and the State Officers of GHSA. The Members of the GHSA Executive
Committee promulgate the uniform rules of play and eligibility under which each of
2
Single A Classification is divided into public and private, thus giving it an
additional eight (8) regions.
-4-
One of GHSA’s rules is that schools, their personnel, coaches, and boosters
are forbidden to use undue influence to induce a student to transfer from one school
to another. This rule is set forth in GHSA By-law 1.70 et seq. (See text of those
rules attached hereto as Exhibit A.) Those rules, found at By-Law 1.71 and 1.73,
provide that schools, their personnel, coaches and boosters are forbidden to have
another school. Any such student who is recruited is subject to being ruled ineligible
for one calendar year. While such a student may practice and compete at the sub-
varsity level, the student is ineligible to compete at the varsity level for one calendar
year from the date of entry into the new school. GHSA member schools which
contend that any student transferring to their school was not recruited, may file an
appeal of that decision to the GHSA State Appeals Board and, if the finding of
Committee or GHSA Board of Trustees. GHSA requires accuracy and honesty from
This case arose when GHSA received several recorded conversations between
Valdosta High School Football Coach, Rush Propst, and Valdosta Touchdown Club
Director, Nub Nelson. In those recorded conversations, Coach Propst admitted that
he and boosters of the Valdosta High School Football Team were talking to and
attempting to recruit students from other high schools to transfer to Valdosta High
-5-
School to play football. As admitted at the appeal hearing by Valdosta City Schools’
Superintendent, Todd Cason, one of those students being recruited was Plaintiff.
After an investigation was conducted, GHSA Executive Director, Robin Hines, sent
a letter to the Principal of Valdosta High School on March 17, 2021 advising her of
the alleged violations of GHSA rules and the intent of the GHSA to assess penalties,
including ruling the subject students ineligible, and advising Valdosta High School
of its right to submit evidence and to request a hearing regarding the charges prior
to any decision being made on the charges and any imposition of penalties.
After review of all the evidence in the possession of GHSA and the responses
of Valdosta High School to the alleged charges, Dr. Hines entered a decision on
April 8, 2021, finding that recruitment had occurred and ruling that the Plaintiff and
other students who were the subject of recruitment would be ruled ineligible for a
period of one year. On April 13, 2021, Valdosta High School filed its appeal of
those penalties to the GHSA Appeals Board which affirmed the decision of GHSA’s
Executive Director. Valdosta High School then requested an appeal to the GHSA
Board of Trustees. The GHSA Board of Trustees met on May 4, 2021, and again
the GHSA State Appeals Board and subsequently to the Board of Trustees are
-6-
Plaintiff’s Requests were then filed asking this Court to overrule GHSA and
CITATION OF AUTHORITY
interest giving rise to a due process claim. Smith v. Crim, 240 Ga. 390. The
Supreme Court of Georgia, in the case of GHSA v. Waddell, 248 Ga. 542, citing
Smith v. Crim, further held that “we now go further and hold that courts of equity in
this state are without authority to review decisions of football referees because those
decisions do not present judicial controversies”. Then in the case of Parents Against
Realignment v. GHSA, 271 Ga. 114, the Supreme Court went even further in holding
necessity for shielding the courts from an incalculable new potential for lawsuits, . .
the judicial branch must be withheld. . . . In this case there was no deprivation of any
not essential to the prescribed curriculum” (citing Smith v. Crim, 240 Ga. 390.)
-7-
SUMMARY
protectable property interest giving rise to a claim of denial of due process. Further,
the decisions of school officials and GHSA do not present justiciable controversies,
-8-
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR LOWNDES COUNTY
STATE OF GEORGIA
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on July 15, 2021, I electronically filed the within and
Clerk of the Court via its electronic filing system, which shall electronically provide
notice to all counsel of record. I further certify that I placed a true and correct copy
in the United States mail, with adequate postage thereon, addressed as follows:
William J. Godfrey
P.O. Box 2321
Albany, Georgia 31702
-2-