TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Albach v. Odle

John Albach, as Next Friend and Guardian of John R. Albach, a Minor v. James Odle, Individually and as Executive Secretary of the New Mexico Activities Association

Albach v. Odle, 531 F.2d 983 (10th Cir. 1976)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
March 25, 1976
Docket
No. 75--1137
Citations
531 F.2d 9831976 U.S. App. LEXIS 12210

Opinion

531 F.2d 983

John ALBACH, as next friend and guardian of John R. Albach, a minor, et al., Appellants, v. James ODLE, Individually and as Executive Secretary of the New Mexico Activities Association, et al., Appellees.

No. 75--1137.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Nov. 11, 1975. Decided March 25, 1976.

John W. Boyd, Albuquerque, N.M. (David A. Freedman and Thomas Horn, Albuquerque, N.M., for American Civil Liberties Union with him on the brief), for appellants.

Byron Caton, Caton & Hynes, Farmington, N.M., for appellees.

Before SETH, HOLLOWAY and DOYLE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

1

This appeal seeks to test the application of transfer rules adopted by the New Mexico Activities Association. The rules automatically bar from interscholastic high school athletic competition for one year any student who transfers from his home district to a boarding school or from a boarding school to his home district. Jurisdiction is premised on 28 U.S.C. § 1343 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 .

2

The trial court dismissed the complaint on various grounds, one of which was that it failed to raise a substantial federal question. We affirm.

3

Controlling precedent is found in Oklahoma High School Athletic Ass'n v. Bray, 321 F.2d 269 (10th Cir.), where this court stated:

4

'. . . In the case at bar, once the pleadings were pierced at pre-trial, it became apparent that Bray's grievance with the Athletic Association lay only with the application of its residence rule, the Board's refusal to grant an exception for hardship, and a general attack upon the amount of power delegated by the high schools to the Association. Such complaints are not within federal cognizance, . . ..' 5

The court held that if Bray had not voluntarily dismissed the action, the trial court would have been compelled to dismiss for lack of a substantial federal question. Appellant's allegations are virtually identical with those noted above.

6

Appellant cites numerous cases in support of the contention that high school athletic regulations must survive constitutional scrutiny. The cases are distinguished by the fact that, in the context of athletic regulations, clearly defined constitutional principles are at issue. See Brenden v. Independent School District 742, 477 F.2d 1292 (8th Cir.), Gilpin v. Kansas State High School Activities Ass'n, Inc., 377 F.Supp. 1233 (D.Kan.), and Reed v. Nebraska School Activities Ass'n, 341 F.Supp. 258 (D.Neb.)--sexual discrimination; Davis v. Meek, 344 F.Supp. 298 (N.D.Ohio)--invasion of marital privacy. See also Howard University v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 166 U.S.App.D.C. 260 , 510 F.2d 213 --alienage discrimination; Louisiana High School Athletic Ass'n v. St. Augustine High School, 396 F.2d 224 (5th Cir.)--racial discrimination. That is not the case here. Participation in interscholastic athletics is not a constitutionally protected civil right. Oklahoma High School Athletic Ass'n v. Bray, supra; Mitchell v. Louisiana High School Athletic Ass'n, 430 F.2d 1155 (5th Cir.). The supervision and regulation of high school athletic programs remain within the discretion of appropriate state boards, and are not within federal cognizance under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless the regulations deny an athlete a constitutionally protected right or classify him or her on a suspect basis.

7

Appellant also argues that Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 , 95 S.Ct. 729 , 42 L.Ed.2d 725 , somehow negates our decision in Bray. We disagree. Goss recognizes a student's entitlement to a public education as a property interest which is constitutionally protected. A ten-day suspension from school without a hearing was found to violate a student's right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. But it is necessary to note that in framing the property interest the Court in Goss speaks in terms of the 'educational process.' 419 U.S. at 576 , 95 S.Ct. at 737 , 42 L.Ed.2d at 735 . The educational process is a broad and comprehensive concept with a variable and indefinite meaning. It is not limited to classroom attendance but includes innumerable separate components, such as participation in athletic activity and membership in school clubs and social groups, which combine to provide an atmosphere of intellectual and moral advancement. We do not read Goss to establish a property interest subject to constitutional protection in each of these separate components.

8

AFFIRMED.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 4 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

Cited by 13 cases

View all citing references →
1977: 11981: 22002: 12006: 12017: 12020: 12021: 22022: 12024: 319772026peak 2024 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Taylor v. Enumclaw School District No. 216133 P.3d 492 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006)
  2. Walker v. Jemez Mountain School DistrictNo. 1:19-cv-00714 (D.N.M. June 19, 2020)
  3. Rutledge v. Arizona Board of Regents660 F.2d 1345 (9th Cir. 1981)
  4. Kentucky High School Athletic Ass'n v. Hopkins County Board of Education552 S.W.2d 685 (Ky. Ct. App. 1977)
  5. Menke v. Ohio High School Athletic Assn.441 N.E.2d 620 (Ohio Ct. App. 1981)
  6. Parker v. Arizona Interscholastic Ass'n59 P.3d 806 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002)

Most recent

  1. Byrd v. Independent School District No. 8 of Tulsa County OklahomaNo. 4:23-cv-00404 (N.D. Okla. Sept. 30, 2024)
  2. Friends of the Field v. D.C. Board of Zoning AdjustmentNo. 23-AA-0360 (D.C. Aug. 29, 2024)
  3. Armenta v. Independent School District No 5 of Garvin CountyNo. 5:22-cv-00659 (W.D. Okla. June 21, 2024)
  4. Ward v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic AssociationNo. 2:22-cv-02626 (W.D. Tenn. Oct. 5, 2022)
  5. Williams v. SonnentagNo. 1:21-cv-02757 (D. Colo. Nov. 9, 2021)
  6. L.C. VS. MIDDLESEX COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE (L-1292-17, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED)No. A-3654-18 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Apr. 9, 2021)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 9

DepthCaseCited by
Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975) 2,577
Okla. High Sch. Athletic Ass'n v. Bray, 321 F.2d 269 (10th Cir. 1963) 51
Howard Univ. Et At. v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 510 F.2d 213 (D.C. Cir. 1975) 38
Mitchell v. La. High Sch. Athletic Ass'n, 430 F.2d 1155 (5th Cir. 1970) 41
Gilpin v. Kan. State High Sch. Activities Ass'n, 377 F. Supp. 1233 (D. Kan. 1974) 36
Reed ex rel. Reed v. Neb. Sch. Activities Ass'n, 341 F. Supp. 258 (D. Neb. 1972) 33
La. High Sch. Athletic Ass'n. v. St. Augustine High Sch., 396 F.2d 224 (5th Cir. 1968) 32
Brenden v. Indep. Sch. Dist. 742, 477 F.2d 1292 (8th Cir. 1973) 29
Davis v. Meek, 344 F. Supp. 298 (N.D. Ohio 1972) 9

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list