The District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania recently concluded that Article III, Section 8 of the PIAA’s Bylaws, also known as the “Attendance Rule” , is constitutional.
The Attendance Rule directs that home schooled students are permitted to participate in interscholastic sports for the public school within which they reside.
Factual and Procedural History
The Attendance Rule was recently challenged on constitutional grounds when the PIAA ruled a home-schooled student, who was additionally enrolled in two classes at a religiously affiliated, private school, as ineligible to participate in basketball for the private school. The PIAA held that a student with less than full-time enrollment in a private school is ineligible to play for the private school, and must play in the public school district in which he or she resides.
Parent challenged the PIAA’s ruling asserting a violation of her fundamental right to direct the education of her son, in addition to her right to equal protection and free exercise. In response, the PIAA filed a Motion to Dismiss Parent’s claims contending the Attendance Rule is facially neutral and does not burden Parent’s right to free exercise.
Court Decision
Agreeing with the PIAA, the District Court determined the Attendance Rule is facially neutral as it does not target religiously motivated conduct either on its face or as applied in practice, and of general applicability, because it imposes the same requirements on parents who home-school for secular reasons as on parents who do so for religious reasons.
Moreover, the Court found that any burden the Rule places on Parent’s religious exercise was minimal as the Rule does not deny parents or their children the right to actively practice their faith, nor prohibits a child from obtaining the religious education provided by a private, religiously affiliated school.
As the Court concluded that the Attendance Rule is facially neutral, generally applicable, and does not deny or burden the right to worship in any legally significant way, the Court applied the rational basis review to Parent’s constitutional claims. The rational basis review dictates that a state action need only rationally advance a legitimate governmental interest to be constitutionally valid. Stated otherwise, under rational-basis review, the challenged action must be upheld if there is any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the law.
In holding the Attendance Rule easily passed the rational basis review, the Court noted the PIAA’s two stated purposes of the Rule where legitimate. Specifically, that the Rule was to ensure that athletics remained subservient to academics and that the restrictions set forth in the Rule are necessary because the freedom of choice would allow unfair concentration of athletes at a particular school thought students “cherry picking” schools and athletic programs with which to get involved.
As a result, the Court dismissed Parent’s Constitutional claims determining Parent failed to satisfy her heavy burden to overcome the highly deferential standard promulgated under the rational basis review.
The Bottom Line
The Court holding provides, under the United States Constitution, students wishing to participate in interscholastic sporting events governed by the PIAA have three choices. First, a student can attend a public school full-time, which would permit that student to participate in all sports on behalf of that school. Second, a student can attend a private school full-time, which would make student eligible to participate in interscholastic sports for that school. Third, a student who is home-schooled may participate in sporting activities for the public school in which he or she resides.
The Court’s decision clearly and unequivocally dictates that a home-schooled student may not participate in interscholastic sporting events governed by the PIAA for private schools. Students wishing to participate in such activities must do so for the public school within which they reside.
School Law Bullets are a publication of the KingSpry Education Law Practice Group. John E. Freund, III, is our editor. The article is meant to be informational and does not constitute legal advice.
