The Courts
U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
Student Athlete Loses UIL School Transfer Appeal
Ruling: An ISD did not violate a student’s federal “equal protection” rights when the district complained to the UIL that the student had transferred to another district for athletic purposes in violation of the league’s rules. Ruben Xavier Martinez, individually and as next friend of N.M. v. New Deal ISD, No. 19-50603. Issued Feb. 3. Ordered “not published.”
When N.M. — identified in media reports as Nehemiah Martinez — transferred in the middle of his 10th grade year from New Deal ISD (NDISD) to nearby Lubbock-Cooper ISD (LCISD) in January 2018, NDISD submitted a Previous Athletic Participation Form (PAPF) to the UIL claiming that N.M. had transferred to LCISD for athletic purposes in violation of UIL rules. This resulted in the UIL suspending N.M. from league-sponsored varsity athletic competitions for a year.
N.M. sued the UIL, its executive director and NDISD in federal court, which resulted in the judge dismissing the suit against all of the defendants.
N.M. appealed only the dismissal of the suit to the Fifth Circuit, thus ending the part of the suit against the UIL.
The remaining part of N.M.’s suit against NDISD contended his equal protection rights were violated because NDISD had singled him out for a previous athletic participation complaint because the ISD had not done so with two other “similarly situated” former students.
N.M. claimed that he and the other two students had each: 1) participated in athletics at NDISD while residing outside the school district, 2) transferred to LCISD in 10th grade and 3) sought to participate in athletics as 10th grade LCISD students.
N.M. asserted that NDISD did not have a “rational basis” for treating him differently than the other two students.
A three-member Fifth Circuit panel, in this decision, upheld dismissal of the suit against NDISD on findings that the specific circumstances concerning the transfer of the two other students to LCISD could lead to a conclusion that they had not changed school districts for athletic purposes and that N.M. had changed school districts for athletic purposes.
The justices noted, for instance, that the other two students had transferred out of NDISD after their 9th grade year had ended, but before entering 10th grade, while N.M. transferred in the middle of 10th grade, after football season had ended. They also examined the individual circumstances of the reasons the three students had transferred to LCISD to determine that it could be reasonably concluded that only N.M. changed districts for athletic purposes.
Thus, NDISD had a “rational basis” for filing a PAPF against N.M. and not for the two other former student athletes, the justices concluded.