LOWNDES COUNTY, GEORGIA

Lowndes County - Superior Court

2021CV1092
7/15/2021 11:41 AM
Beth C. Greene
Clerk of Superior State Juvenile Courts
Reviewed by: Micheal Hebert
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR LOWNDES COUNTY
STATE OF GEORGIA

SHAFREDA HALL, AS GUARDIAN :

OF T. L., :
:
Plaintiff, :
:
v. : Civil Action No.
: 2021-cv-1092
GEORGIA HIGH SCHOOL :
ASSOCIATION, :
:
Defendant. :

GEORGIA HIGH SCHOOL ASSOCIATION’S RESPONSE TO

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EMERGENCY HEARING AND PETITION
FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Comes now Defendant, Georgia High School Association (“GHSA”), and

responds to Plaintiff’s Motion for Emergency Hearing and Petition for Declaratory

Judgment and Injunctive Relief (hereinafter, referred to jointly as “Plaintiff’s

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.

Crim, 240 Ga. 390, 240 S.E.2d 884.

 SECOND DEFENSE

The requirements for issuance of a temporary restraining order and other

injunctive relief set forth in O.C.G.A. § 9-11-65 have not been met. Plaintiff has not

and cannot demonstrate his likelihood of prevailing on the merits, or that he

possesses any legally recognizable right to participate in interscholastic activities

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.

Kilpatrick, 286 Ala. 129, 237 SO.2d 652.

THIRD DEFENSE

No justiciable controversy exists in this matter. The Appellate Courts of

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

of a property right and participating in interscholastic athletics is not such a right.

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.

University Interscholastic League, 759 F.2d 1233 (5th Cir. 1985).

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

million students participating in extracurricular activities at those schools. The

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

representative to the GHSA Executive Committee. The GHSA Executive

Committee consists of those sixty-four region representatives as well as the State

Superintendent of Schools or its representative, one member each appointed by

Georgia School Boards Association, Georgia School Superintendent’s Association,

Georgia Association of Secondary School Principals, Georgia Athletic Directors

Association, Georgia Athletic Coaches Association, two (2) at-large female

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

the member schools agree to compete when they join GHSA.

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

personal contact with students in an attempt to persuade a student to transfer to

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

recruitment is upheld, a further appeal may be made to the GHSA Executive

Committee or GHSA Board of Trustees. GHSA requires accuracy and honesty from

its member schools in compliance with its rules of student eligibility.

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

affirmed the decision of GHSA’s Executive Director.

A summary of the evidence as well as the evidentiary exhibits presented to

the GHSA State Appeals Board and subsequently to the Board of Trustees are

attached hereto as Exhibits B and C.

-6-
 Plaintiff’s Requests were then filed asking this Court to overrule GHSA and

to grant Plaintiff immediate eligibility to participate at Valdosta High School during

the current school year.

CITATION OF AUTHORITY

Appellate Courts of Georgia have consistently ruled that there is no

constitutional right to participate in interscholastic sports and no protectable property

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

that “courts are ill-equipped to make fundamental, legislative and administrative

policy decisions which are involved in the everyday administration of a public

school system. . . . Judicial restraint regarding school administration is born of the

necessity for shielding the courts from an incalculable new potential for lawsuits, . .

. (A)bsent plain necessity impelled by a deprivation of major proportion, the hand of

the judicial branch must be withheld. . . . In this case there was no deprivation of any

constitutional and statutory rights as interscholastic sports are extracurricular and

not essential to the prescribed curriculum” (citing Smith v. Crim, 240 Ga. 390.)

-7-
 SUMMARY

Plaintiff has no right to participate in interscholastic athletics and no

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,

as no deprivation of any rights of the Plaintiff have been sustained. Plaintiff’s

Requests should be denied.

/s/ Justin B. Connell

Justin B. Connell
Ga. Bar Number 142692

ELARBEE, THOMPSON, SAPP & WILSON, LLP

229 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Suite 800
Atlanta, GA 30303
(404) 659-6700
[email protected]

/s/ Alan W. Connell

Alan W. Connell
Ga. Bar Number 181550
CONNELL & WHEELER
Peachtree City
401 Westpark Court
Suite 200
Peachtree City, GA 30269
Thomaston
201 North Green Street
P.O. Box 1206
Thomaston, GA 30286
(706) 647-8180
[email protected]

Attorneys for GHSA

-8-
 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR LOWNDES COUNTY
STATE OF GEORGIA

SHAFREDA HALL, AS GUARDIAN :

OF T. L., :
:
Plaintiff, :
:
v. : Civil Action No.
: 2021-cv-1092
GEORGIA HIGH SCHOOL :
ASSOCIATION, :
:
Defendant. :

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on July 15, 2021, I electronically filed the within and

foregoing GEORGIA HIGH SCHOOL ASSOCIATION’S RESPONSE TO

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EMERGENCY HEARING AND PETITION

FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF with the

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

/s/ Justin B. Connell

Justin B. Connell
Ga. Bar Number 142692

<<Signature Continued on Following Page>>

ELARBEE, THOMPSON, SAPP & WILSON, LLP
229 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Suite 800
Atlanta, GA 30303
(404) 659-6700
[email protected]

-2-