2
1. Why is it important to understand what sport organizations could be deemed state
actors? Provide legal case examples to support your answer.
In sports law, one must understand that sports organizations can be deemed state actors,
which is a crucial way of determining the applicability of constitutional protections for such
organizations. The state actors are subjected to the constraints of the U.S. Constitution,
especially when it comes to individual rights such as due process and equal protection under the
Fourteenth Amendment. Hence, distinction influences the outcomes of legal challenges that
involve civil rights and liberties within the sports realm.
A significant example of legal cases supporting the need to understand sports
organizations that can be deemed state actors is Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary
School Athletic Association (TSSAA) of 2001. In this landmark case, the Supreme Court held
that the TSSAA, a state actor, was a regulatory body governing high school athletics in
Tennessee (Madry, 2001). The TSSAA's actions were deemed state actions because of the
"pervasive entwinement" between the association and the public schools it regulated. This
decision emphasized the significance of the relationship between a private entity and the state in
determining state actor status. The Court stated that the close nexus between the TSSAA and
public school officials who constituted most of the association's membership and governance
demonstrated sufficient state involvement.
Another relevant case is that of NCAA v. Tarkanian of 1988. Contrastingly, in NCAA v.
Tarkanian, the Supreme Court ruled that the NCAA was not a state actor. Jerry Tarkanian, a
basketball coach at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV), was disciplined by the
NCAA. Tarkanian argued that the NCAA's actions violated his due process rights. The Court
found that the NCAA, as a private association, was not acting on behalf of the state, even though
3
it regulated state universities (Ehrlich & Ternes, 2021). The decision highlighted that the
NCAA's enforcement actions were not attributable to the state, thus differentiating the
organization's private conduct from state action.
The significance of distinguishing state actors from other entities is to ensure
constitutional protections, legal accountability, and policy implementation. Identifying a sports
organization as a state actor ensures that constitutional protections, such as due process and equal
protection, apply to its actions. These considerations can protect individuals from arbitrary or
discriminatory practices. State actor status subjects sports organizations to legal accountability
under federal civil rights laws, such as Section 1983 claims, which allow individuals to sue for
constitutional violations committed by state actors. Understanding the state actor status aids in
developing and implementing policies that comply with constitutional requirements, thus
preventing legal disputes and enhancing fair practices within sports organizations.
References
Ehrlich, S. C., & Ternes, N. C. (2021). Putting the First Amendment in play: Name, image, and
likeness policies and athlete freedom of speech.>Colum. JL & Arts,>45, 47.
Madry, A. R. (2001). Statewide School Athletic Associations and Constitutional Liability;
Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association.>Marq. Sports
L. Rev.,>12, 365.
2. The Fourth Amendment protects against “unreasonable” searches. Define and give
an example of a “search.” Describe/explain the analysis used to determine a
“reasonable search” and apply it to a sports organization.
4
According to the Fourth Amendment, a search occurs when government officials intrude
upon an individual's privacy. Any investigatory activity that government officials or agents
infringe upon one's privacy rights is considered an unreasonable search. A relevant example of a
search in a sports context is drug testing among athletes. Sports organizations that act as state
actors tend to conduct searches during drug testing, including analyzing biological samples like
urine and blood to detect any prohibited substance. These tests are considered an intrusion of
athletes' privacy.
To determine whether a search is reasonable, courts typically employ a balancing test
weighing the government's interest against the individual's privacy rights, considering the
exercise's legitimate government interest, privacy expectations, and intrusiveness. As a
legitimate government interest, the purpose and necessity of the search should be genuine, such
as maintaining fair competition and athlete health in sports (Epstein, 2021). The government
must ensure the athletes' privacy expectations by considering the search context. Regarding
intrusiveness, the nature and extent of the search should not unreasonably invade the individual's
privacy.
The concept of unreasonable search has been applied in various sports contexts. For
instance, in the case of Vernonia School District 47j v. Acton in 1995, the Supreme Court upheld
the constitutionality of random drug testing of a student-athlete (Veytsman, 2000). However, the
court applied the balancing test and found that the seasonable was in line with the test's
legitimate interest, expectation of privacy, and intrusiveness. Ultimately, the school's interest in
preventing drug use among the students was to maintain a safe and fair athletic environment for
all participants, which was deemed compelling. When it comes to the expectation of privacy, the
students had lower expectations due to the school's custodial responsibilities and the voluntary
5
nature of participating in sports. At the same time, the drug testing procedure was considered less
intrusive as it involved privacy safeguards and limitations to detecting drug use.
In professional sports, in the case of the National Football League Players Association v.
National Football League (2011), the court rulings proved the reasonableness of drug testing
protocols under the collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The balancing test adequately
considered the legitimate interest of the test, expectation of privacy, and intrusiveness. Ideally,
the NFL's interest in drug testing was to ensure a drug-free league to protect players' health and
maintain public trust (Epstein, 2021). Professional athletes had reduced expectations of privacy
due to the negotiated terms in the CBA, which included consent to drug testing. The tests were
deemed reasonable based on the established procedures, consent from players, and minimal
intrusion.
References
Epstein, A. (2021). Minnesota: Decades of Decisions and Impact on Sports Law.>Campbell L.
Rev.,>44, 249.
Veytsman, P. A. (2000). Drug Testing Student Athletes and Fourth Amendment Privacy: The
Legal Aftermath of Vernonia v. Action.>Temp. L. Rev.,>73, 295.
3. What does it mean to enforce a rule or policy in an arbitrary and capricious
manner? Give a specific sport, tourism, or recreation related example.
Enforcing a rule or policy arbitrarily and capriciously means irrationally applying the rule
or policy without a reasonable or fair basis or in a way that needs more consistency and
predictability. Arbitrary and capricious enforcement is characterized by actions based on
personal preference rather than reasoned judgment and compliance with standards (Sindik,
6
2021). An example of arbitrary and capricious enforcement is NCAA eligibility decisions.
Notably, the NCAA has faced criticism for its inconsistent use of rules regarding athlete
eligibility, especially concerning their academic qualifications and amateur status.
In the case of Oliver v. NCAA of 2009, the Supreme Court ruling declared that the
NCAA acted arbitrarily and capriciously to render baseball player Andrew Oliver ineligible.
Oliver had received legal advice during MLB contract negotiations, which the NCAA deemed a
violation of its amateurism rules (Lockhart, 2009). The court criticized the NCAA's decision for
lacking a coherent and rational basis, noting that the rule was applied inconsistently and unfairly
penalized Oliver without clear justification. As depicted in the case, analyzing arbitrary and
capricious enforcement involves investigating whether due process lacks a rational basis, is
consistent, predictable, and is apparent. Enforcement of a rule must be supported by logical
reasoning and evidence. In Oliver's case, the NCAA failed to provide a reasonable explanation
for receiving legal advice should result in eligibility. The rules and policies need to be enforced
uniformly, contrary to the NCAA's inconsistent application of its Amateurism rules, which
created unpredictably and unfair treatment of athletes. Clear and transparent guidelines must be
followed for fair enforcement.
Arbitrary and capricious enforcement undermines trust in the governing body and can
have significant negative consequences for the individuals affected. In sports, inconsistent rules
can damage athletes' careers and reputations, erode public confidence in the integrity of
competitions, and lead to legal challenges and reforms.
References
Lockhart, T. M. (2009). Oliver v. NCAA: Throwing a Contractual Curveball at the NCAA's Veil
or Amateurism.>U. Dayton L. Rev.,>35, 175.
7
Sindik, A. (2021). Administrative law and the federal communications
commission.>Communication Law and Policy,>26(3), 312-335.
4. Explain the four elements needed before establishing a claim under Section 504 of
the Rehabilitation Act and apply it in a scenario in a sport organization.
Section 504 prohibits organizations and employers from excluding individuals with
disabilities from opportunities to receive program benefits and services by defining the rights of
individuals with disabilities to participate and access program benefits, among other services.
Based on the provisions of Section 504, a plaintiff must have a disability, be qualified, engage in
a program that receives federal financial assistance, and be discriminated against solely based on
their disability for them to establish a claim under the Act (Act, 2003). The four elements are
fundamental in determining those eligible for protection under Section 504. Disability refers to a
physical or mental impairment that substantially limits the plaintiff from one or more major life
activities. Regarding qualifications, the plaintiff must be qualified for the program or activity in
question by meeting the essential eligibility requirements with or without reasonable
accommodations. A program involved must receive federal financial assistance to protect the
discriminated party. Finally, the discriminating Act should be based on the disability and not
other descriptive characteristics.
Section 504 can apply to sports organizations in the Paralympic Games scenario. A
Paralympic athlete who is denied the national training program run by a sports organization
receiving federal funding can file a claim against the organization, alleging discrimination on
their disability. However, the athlete must have a physical or mental disability, be a qualified
athlete, and be discriminated against based on the disability. At the same time, the federal
8
government must fund the accused organization. To succeed in their claim, the athlete must
demonstrate that the sports organization failed to provide reasonable accommodations allowing
equal participation. If the organization can show that accommodating the athlete would impose
an undue burden or fundamentally alter the nature of the program, they may have a defense
against the claim.
A significant sample case in this context is Southeastern Community College v. Davis. In
Southeastern Community College v. Davis, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of reasonable
accommodations under Section 504 (Francis, 2020). The Court held that the college was not
required to modify its nursing program to accommodate a deaf student substantially. This case
underscores the balance between accommodating disabilities and maintaining a program's
essential standards and functions.
References
Act, D. (2003). Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.>Any student requesting.
Francis, L. (2020). Debilitating southeastern community college v. Davis: Achieving the promise
of disability civil rights.>UDC/DCSL L. Rev.,>23, 183.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
