Legal Document

127 S. Ct. 2489 (2007) TENNESSEE SECONDARY SCHOOL ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, Petitioner, v. BRENTWOOD ACADEMY. No. 06-427. Supreme Court of United States. Argued April 18, 2007. Decided June 21, *2491 Maureen Mahoney, Washington, DC, for the petitioner. *2492 Dan Himmelfarb, States as amicus curiae, by special leave Court, supporting James F. Blumstein, Nashville, TN, respondent. Richard L. Colbert, Colbert & Wilbert, PLLC, Franklin, Thomas R. McCoy, Vanderbilt Law School, E. Counsel Record, J. Scott Ballenger, Alexander Maltas, Nathan H. Seltzer, Latham Watkins LLP, Lee Barfield II, W. Brantley Phillips, Jr., Ross I. Booher, Bass, Berry Sims PLC, University School Law, Attorneys Respondent. Justice STEVENS announced judgment and delivered opinion with respect to Parts I, II-B, III, IV, an Part II-A, in which SOUTER, GINSBURG, BREYER join. The principal issue before us is whether enforcement a rule prohibiting high school coaches from recruiting middle athletes violates First Amendment. We also must decide sanction imposed on respondent violating that was preceded fair hearing. I Although this case has had long history, relevant facts may be stated briefly. Tennessee Secondary Athletic Association (TSSAA) not-for-profit membership corporation organized regulate interscholastic sports among its members, include some 290 public 55 private schools Tennessee. Brentwood Academy one those schools. Since early 1950's, TSSAA prohibited using "undue influence" students their athletic programs. In 1997, Brentwood's football coach sent letter group eighth-grade boys inviting them attend spring practice sessions. See App. 119. explained equipment would distributed "getting involved soon possible definitely your advantage." Ibid. It signed "Your Coach." While who received contract signaling intent Brentwood, none enrolled within meaning rules. id., at 182 (defining "enrolled" having "attended 3 days school"). All attended least As comes us, it settled coach's pre-enrollment solicitation violated TSSAA's anti-recruiting he ample notice his conduct prohibited. accordingly sanctioned Brentwood. After proceeding through two layers internal review, brought action against executive director federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. here, made claims: first, state violation Fourteenth Amendments; second, flawed adjudication appeal deprived due process law. District granted relief but Appeals reversed, holding voluntary *2493 association did not act color certiorari correct threshold issue. Assn., 531 U.S. 288, 121 924, 148 Ed. 2d 807 (2001). On remand, Sixth Circuit back once again ruled 304 Supp. 981 (M.D.Tenn.2003). appealed, affirmed over judge's dissent. 442 F.3d 410 (2006). majority held content-based regulation speech narrowly tailored serve permissible purposes. Id., 420-431. concluded Board improperly considered ex parte evidence during deliberations, thereby rights. 433-438. certiorari, 549 ___, 852, 166 681 (2007), we reverse. II Amendment protects right publish truthful information about likewise school's try persuade prospective parents excellence reason enrolling. But rights are absolute. chose join TSSAA, league actor invested three-fold obligation prevent exploitation children, ensure athletics remain secondary academics, promote competition members. submits these interests adequately support member trying recruit impressionable athletes. disagrees, maintains asserted too flimsy broad what views serious curtailment constitutional Two aspects taken together should prevail. A strikes nowhere near heart banned dissemination relating sports, nor claimed could. Cf. Virginia Bd. Pharmacy Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 748, 96 1817, 48 346 (1976) (striking down prohibition advertising prices prescription drugs). only prevented schools' individual students. Our cases teach there difference dimension between rules appeals large, see 44 Liquormart, Inc. Rhode Island, 517 484, 495-500, 116 1495, 134 711 (1996), direct, personalized communication coercive setting. Ohralik Ohio State Bar 436 447, 98 1912, 56 444 (1978), nicely illustrates point. Ohralik, disabled bar disciplining lawyer in-person clients. argued our decision Bates Ariz., 433 350, 384, 97 2691, 53 810 (1977), invalidated grounds ban "availability terms routine legal services," protected speech. rejected lawyer's argument, "in-person professional employment *2494 does stand par availability services, let alone forms more traditionally concern Amendment." U.S., 455, 1912. reasoned akin than restriction: "`[I]t never been deemed abridgment freedom or press make course illegal merely because part initiated, evidenced, carried out means language, either spoken, written, printed.' Numerous examples could cited communications regulated without offending Amendment, such exchange securities, corporate proxy statements, price production competitors, employers' threats retaliation labor activities employees.... Each lose power commercial activity harmful whenever component activity." 456[, 1912] (citations omitted). Drawing examples, found "[i]n-person remunerative business transaction essential subordinate component," 457, raised few (if any) problems. identified several evils associated direct distinct harms presented conventional Direct "may exert pressure often demands immediate response, providing opportunity comparison reflection," ibid.; goal provide one-sided presentation encourage speedy perhaps uninformed decisionmaking," short circuits "opportunity intervention counter-education agencies Bar, supervisory authorities, persons close solicited individual," ibid. For reasons, "actually disserve societal interest, Bates, facilitating `informed reliable decisionmaking.'" 458, 1912 (quoting 364, 2691). have since emphasized Ohralik's "narrow" limited "`inherently conducive overreaching other misconduct.'" Edenfield Fane, 507 761, 774, 113 1792, 123 543 (1993) 464, 1912); Zauderer Office Disciplinary Ohio, 471 626, 641, 105 2265, 85 652 (1985) (emphasizing "practice rife possibilities overreaching, invasion privacy, exercise undue influence, outright fraud"). And chary invalidating restrictions absence acute risks solicitation. Edenfield, 775, 1792 restriction accountants "poses same dangers" Ohralik); Zauderer, 639-647, 2265 (invalidating truthful, nondeceptive directed people specific problems); Shapero Kentucky 486 466, 472-478, 108 1916, 100 475 (1988) (overturning blanket proscription all solicitation). view, however, dangers influence exist when *2495 chases ambulance present contacts eighth grader. all, heady thing student contacted directly coachhere, Coach" invited team. many cases, invitation will come accompanied suggestion, subtle otherwise, failure accept hurt student's chances play diminish odds she continue college (dream dreams) sports. 119 ("I do feel getting advantage").[1] Such potent entreaty, playing youthful hopes fears, well kind "disserve[s] interest ... Given free send brochures, post billboards, otherwise advertise programs, poses no significant concerns. B abide antirecruiting rule. 291, 924 ("No forced join"); cf. Grove City College Bell, 465 555, 575, 104 1211, 79 516 (1984). Just government's running effective workplace can circumstances outweigh employee rights, Connick Myers, 461 138, 103 1684, 75 708 (1983), so league's enforcing sometimes warrant curtailing participants. Pickering Township High Dist. 205, Will Cty., 391 563, 568, 88 1731, 20 811 (1968) (holding scope government employee's depends "balance [employee], citizen, commenting upon matters State, employer, promoting efficiency services performs employees"); Comm'rs, Wabaunsee Cty. Umbehr, 518 668, 679, 2342, 135 843 (1996) ("eschew[ing]" formal approach determining contractual relationships call application balancing). This say unbounded authority condition relinquishment any recently context, "[s]o employees speaking citizens concern, they face necessary employers operate efficiently effectively." Garcetti Ceballos, 547 126 1951, 1958 Assuming, deciding, "speaking [a] citize[n] concern," ibid., similarly impose conditions managing efficient state-sponsored league. That necessity obviously here. need empirical data credit common-sense conclusion hard-sell tactics *2496 lead exploitation, distort teams, foster environment prized highly academics. Paris Adult Theatre Slaton, 413 49, 60, 93 2628, 37 446 (1973). discourages precisely sort might harms, detract ability "efficiently Garcetti, S.Ct. 1958. reason, excuse abiding governs sister To hold undermine principle, succinctly articulated dissenting judge Appeals, "[h]igh game. Games rules." F.3d, (opinion Rogers, J.). follow them. III engaging investigation, meetings, exchanges correspondence, 120-123 (fax director), 124-127 (memorandum headmaster), 128-133 (letter headmaster responding director's memorandum), 204-211 further questions); 212-229 (responsive adverse written determination director, 238-244, hearing advisory panel composed three members Control, 254-258, finally de novo review entire Directors, 269-271. During notified charges it. At each hearings, represented counsel given adduce evidence. No offered excluded. nevertheless were full board, heard witnesses respond to. Some background understand claim. One investigation Amateur Union basketball named Bart King pushed talented studentsincluding star Jacques Curry See, e.g., 220, 222 discussing allegation told Curry if "would probably car tenth grade"). consistently maintained affiliation behalf. 221-222. Nevertheless, initial subsequent panel, declared (as players) ineligible 243 (blanket ineligibility), 255 (ineligibility varsity sports). earlier stages case, final Board, live testimony affidavit denying alleged violations. 264-267 (Curry's testimony); 261 (listing "Affidavit King" exhibit).[2] Once *2497 testified, advised board available answer questions, him witness.[3] reviewing evidence, committed violations rules, appeared involve Curry, reinstated Curry's eligibility. penalty violations, put program probation four years, excluded boys' teams tournament playoffs $3,000 fine. 270. discussed presided proceedings investigators, whom cross-examined. investigators provided handwritten notes detailing investigations; notes. consideration influenced board's contravened Due Process Clause. F.Supp.2d, 1003-1006. accepted finding, tainted fairness proceeding. now lower courts erred. agree. Even accepting questionable closed-door deliberations unconstitutional, safely conclude harmless beyond reasonable doubt. begin with, hard believe allegations increased severity penalties leveled Brentwood.[4] importantly, *2498 claim prejudice rests unsupported premise adopted different strategy cross-examine Despite nearly decade undertake cross-examination nothing shared already know.[5] Perhaps why explains looked like. obliquely suggests testify hearing, gives inkling added proceedings. inclined speculate IV reverse remand consistent opinion. ordered. KENNEDY, THE CHIEF JUSTICE, SCALIA, ALITO join, concurring judgment. little difficulty concluding contravene agree opinion's reliance (1978). notes, attorney client, or, point, accident victim potential client. later extended victims mail, though closely divided constitutionality extension. Florida Went It, 515 618, 115 2371, 132 541 (1995). declined extend attorney-client relationship. (1993), struck clear "did personal protection." 1792. noted "Ohralik's narrow depended certain `unique features lawyers' case." (1985)). my view both unnecessary ill rely instant matter. By doing so, opinion, minimum, open implication subject *2499 entered order code affecting allow free-standing representatives nonmember dramatic expansion whole new field endeavor. Yet relying undermines argument that, Academy's consensual Association, head entitled protection. reasons decline II-A portion applicable evident, furthermore, agrees position. post, 2499 (THOMAS, J., judgment). remainder Court's ensues. THOMAS, resolving applies (1968), line violate Ante, 2495-2496. Until today, governed limitations contractors. uproots context association. stretch fit occasioned organization, actor. (2001) (Brentwood I). Because departed dramatically state-action unsurprising framework readily case. Rather going bizarre extending inapplicable doctrine circumstances, simply overrule I.[*] 305-315, dissenting). extension therefore unnecessary, ante, 2493-2495, wrong. expressed KENNEDY's judgment, 2498-2499, addressed particular concur NOTES [1] When asked trial language letter, acknowledged "[i]n cases" "not think that's optional." 301. [2] "[t]here indication organization still considering allegations" clearly erroneous. 981, 1004, n. 29 (M.D.Tenn.2003); 410, 435, (C.A.6 2006) (affirming finding). appealed overturn ineligibility players. 255. justification declaring recruited understood much. wasted effort submit testify. Similarly, testified detail relationship King, 264-267, incorrectly discussion brief 435 ("Evidently hearing"). [3] "[Brentwood's lawyer]: Any questions? That's proof. If just remarks. "By way, here questions. intention on, don't know you interested five minutes hear not. He's want him. "[TSSAA's Executive Director]: right." 267. [4] trial, "dropped" 347 (testimony Michael Hammond), restored fine, probationary period, playoff suspension proceedings, 243, 255, suggesting practical matter affirming remaining appear played negligible role choosing assess. drew contrary single piece evidence: president's affirmative response deposition question supported finding violated. 435-436. president clarified while "`factor'" discussions, "`final King.... [T]he really dealt Mr. Flatt.'" 436. Thinking call, ("Whether actually factor ultimately far less certain"), qualification testimony. below "so slender evidentiary reed" cannot procedural 454 [5] Nor independent investigators' unearthed misconduct XV 03-5245 etc. (CA 2006), pp. 4178-4193. [*] Holding resolve

Classification Label: 2