A.K. v. Minnesota State High School League

Background

A.K. initially planned to attend Tri-City United High School and practiced with its freshman football team for one week before classes began. He then enrolled at Jordan High School and later joined the varsity wrestling team for Scott West, a cooperative program involving Jordan and Bell Plaine High Schools.

The Minnesota State High School League treated A.K. as a transfer student because he had participated in an athletic program at Tri-City before attending Jordan. Under the League’s rules, a transfer student generally cannot participate in varsity athletics for one calendar year after transferring, although the student may participate in junior varsity, intramural, practice, scrimmages, previews, and jamborees. The League rejected Jordan High School’s appeal and later upheld that decision after an Executive Committee review. A.K. therefore could not participate in the 2023 section wrestling meet or qualify for the state tournament.

Claims and motion

A.K. sued the Minnesota State High School League and Troy Stein, individually and in his official capacity as president of the League’s Board of Directors. His first claim alleged that varsity athletics was a protected property interest and that the League violated both procedural and substantive due-process rights. Procedural due process concerns adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard; substantive due process concerns government action that is extraordinarily arbitrary or shocking. His second claim alleged that the League’s bylaws formed a contract with student-athletes and that the League breached that contract. He sought compensatory and punitive damages.

The defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a legally sufficient claim. On such a motion, the court accepts well-pleaded factual allegations as true but disregards unsupported legal conclusions and requires facts making the claims plausible rather than merely possible.

Procedural due process

The court held that Minnesota law does not create a property interest specifically in eligibility for varsity interscholastic competition. Although Minnesota students may have an interest in public education and possibly in interscholastic activities generally, the court found no protected property interest in varsity eligibility. It found the reasoning of an earlier District of Minnesota decision persuasive on that point.

The court further held that, even assuming varsity eligibility were a protected property interest, A.K. received the process required. The League provided a review procedure, including a hearing at which A.K., his parents, and his lawyer could have presented evidence and arguments. The fact that the hearing occurred after wrestling-section rosters were due did not make the process constitutionally inadequate. The court also noted that A.K.’s lawyer had conceded at the hearing that the League provided sufficient process.

The court rejected A.K.’s argument that he lacked notice that freshman football would trigger the transfer rule. It concluded that the relevant bylaw applied when a student participated in an athletic program before attending the new school and did not include the additional “League-sponsored” limitation A.K. proposed. The court also relied on A.K.’s allegation that he had signed an eligibility brochure stating that participation in a school program counts as enrollment for transfer-eligibility purposes.

Substantive due process

The court dismissed the substantive due-process claim because A.K. lacked a protected property interest in varsity eligibility. It alternatively held that the League’s decision was not sufficiently outrageous, irrational, or conscience-shocking to support a substantive due-process claim. A.K. cited no authority establishing that a varsity-eligibility decision reached that level.

Contract claim

The court also dismissed the breach-of-contract claim. It stated that A.K. had cited no authority supporting the view that the League’s bylaws could be treated as a binding contract. Regardless, the court held that A.K. had not plausibly alleged a breach because the bylaws clearly provided that participating in a school activity constitutes enrollment at that school for the relevant eligibility rule. Without a breach, the court explained, there could be no breach-of-contract claim.

Disposition

Judge Paul A. Magnuson granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and ordered that the matter be dismissed with prejudice. The court directed that judgment be entered.