Court Opinion

ID: 9759156
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 00:07:24.557669+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:59.839646
License: Public Domain

Batchelder, J.,
dissenting: The majority, recognizing that the conduct of the affairs of the NHIAA constitutes “state action,” takes a further step which I am not prepared to take at this time. It attaches a constitutionally protected property interest to participate in school athletic programs. The possibility of athletic scholarships does not alter such an interest. The Pennsylvania court, facing a similar situation as presented here, canvassed the law and found that “an overwhelming majority of the [cases] have rejected the notion that participation in athletics is a property right.” Adamek v. Pa. Interscholastic Athletic Ass’n, 426 A.2d 1206, 1207 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1981); see also cases cited in id. n.l. Earlier, another court addressed a similar question and set forth a rationale that expresses the possible consequences of the action which the court takes today.
“The myriad activities which combine to form that educational process cannot be dissected to create hundreds of separate property rights, each cognizable under the Constitution. Otherwise, removal from a particular class, dismissal from an athletic team, a club or any extracurricular activity, would each require ultimate satisfaction of procedural due process.”
Dallan v. Cumberland Valley School District, 391 F. Supp. 358, 361 (M.D. Pa. 1975).