Bruce v. South Carolina High School League

Decision Date14 June 1972
Docket NumberNo. 19441,19441
Citation258 S.C. 546,189 S.E.2d 817
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesMichael BRUCE and Jerry Bruce, by their guardian ad litem, Dean Bruce, for and on behalf of these minors and all others similarly situated, Respondents, v. SOUTH CAROLINA HIGH SCHOOL LEAGUE et al., Appellants.

Frank L. Taylor, and Frank L. Taylor, Jr., Columbia, for appellants.

Leo H. Hill, and Rhoten Shetley, Greenville, for respondents.

C. Kennon Robertson and Lehman A. Moseley, Jr., Greenville, amicus curiae.

LEWIS, Justice:

This is an appeal from an order of the lower court restraining the enforcement of a rule of appellant, South Carolina High School League, under which the respondent students were declared ineligible to participate in interscholastic athletics at Blue Ridge High School, in Greenville County, South Carolina. The material facts were stipulated.

Appellant, South Carolina High School League, is a voluntary organization comprised of all public high schools, including Blue Ridge High School, and some of the private schools, in South Carolina. It had 340 members at the beginning of the 1969--70 school year, with the League's activities offered to over 150,000 students. The governing body of the League is its Executive Committee, with legislative power vested in a Legislative Assembly. Membership in both of these governing bodies is composed largely, if not entirely, of high school superintendents, principals or administrators of the member schools. The purpose of the League is set forth in Article II, Section 1, of its Constitution:

'The purpose of the League, a voluntary organization, is to formulate and maintain policies that will safeguard the educational values of interscholastic competition, to cultivate high ideals of sportsmanship, to develop and direct a program which will promote, protect and conserve the health and physical welfare of all participants, and to promote uniformity of standards in all interscholastic competition.'

The rules of the League regulate interscholastic contests among its members, and deal at some length with the eligibility of students to engage therein. Article 8, Section 8, of the Constitution of the League governs the eligibility of a student when he transfers from one school to another. Pertinent here, Section 8(B) provides that a student who has the option of attending more than one high school and who voluntarily transfers from one school to another without a bona fide change of residence will be ineligible to participate in interscholastic athletics for one year.

The purpose of the foregoing rule is to prevent the encouragement and enticement of athletes to transfer from one school to another. However, in its application, the rule provides for no exceptions or qualifications. If a student transfers from one school to another, without a bona fide change of residence, he is automatically declared ineligible to engage in interscholastic athletics for a period of one year, regardless of the motives which prompted the transfer.

Respondents are high school students and voluntarily transferred, with no change of residence, from a private school which they were attending, to Blue Ridge High School, their neighborhood public school. They desired to play interscholastic football for Blue Ridge High School but were declared ineligible to do so because of the foregoing rule of the League, which made them ineligible to participate in interscholastic athletics for a period of one year.

It is conceded that the transfer of respondents from the private to the public school was purely voluntary and not the result of recruiting or enticement for athletic purposes.

The issues to be decided concern the right of the High School League to enforce the foregoing 'eligibility' rule against respondents. Respondents seek to enjoin the enforcement of the rule against them upon the ground that it deprives them of due process and the equal protection of the laws, in that it arbitrarily deprives them of their right to participate in interscholastic athletics at Blue Ridge High School. This contention is based upon the premise that interscholastic athletics is a 'fundamental segment of the educational process of our public schools' and that their right to participate therein is commensurate with their right to participate in the regular classroom curriculum.

The League maintains, on the other hand, that participation in high school interscholastic athletics is a mere privilege and not a right; that the rule in question is not arbitrary; and that the courts are without jurisdiction to enjoin...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • Bailey v. Truby
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • July 11, 1984
    ...Interscholastic Athletic Association Inc., 57 Pa.Commw. 261, 262, 426 A.2d 1206, 1207 (1981); Bruce v. South Carolina High School League, 258 S.C. 546, 551-52, 189 S.E.2d 817, 819 (1972); Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association v. Cox, 221 Tenn. 164, 176, 425 S.W.2d 597, 602 (1968);......
  • Indiana High School Athletic Ass'n, Inc. v. Carlberg by Carlberg
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • December 19, 1997
    ...claim of entitlement); Simkins, 434 N.W.2d at 368 (interscholastic participation is mere expectancy); Bruce v. S.C. High Sch. League, 258 S.C. 546, 189 S.E.2d 817, 819 (1972) (participation in high school extracurricular activities is a privilege); Menke v. Ohio High Sch. Athletic Ass'n, 2 ......
  • K. L. v. Mo. State High Sch. Activities Ass'n
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
    • April 8, 2016
    ...; Midget v. Oklahoma Secondary School Activities Association, 505 P.2d 175 (Ok.Sup.Ct.1972) ; Bruce v. South Carolina High School League , 258 S.C. 546, 189 S.E.2d 817 (S.C.Sup.Ct.1972) ;Harrisburg School District v. Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic Association , 453 Pa. 495, 309 A.2d ......
  • T.V. ex rel. B.V. v. Smith-Green Cmty. Sch. Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana
    • August 10, 2011
    ...High School Athletic Ass'n, 779 F.2d 315 (6th Cir.1985), for Privileges and Immunities analysis, and Bruce v. South Carolina High School League, 258 S.C. 546, 189 S.E.2d 817 (1972), for Equal Protection analysis. 4. Curiously, it appears that this mother's daughter was not in fact on any of......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT