## Facts

- Colorado Seminary operated the University of Denver (D.U.) and fielded a varsity men’s hockey program.
- D.U. recruited Canadian hockey players who had previously played for Canadian amateur teams and had accepted room and board while playing in Canada.
- The NCAA determined that receiving room and board constituted impermissible benefits under its amateurism/eligibility rules and declared the players ineligible for intercollegiate competition.
- D.U., relying on its own interpretation of NCAA rules and advice from its hockey coach (a former NCAA committee participant), refused to accept the NCAA’s determination and permitted the players to compete.
- The NCAA imposed sanctions on D.U., including bans on television appearances and postseason play and a requirement to return a prior national championship trophy.
- Colorado Seminary and the affected student-athletes sued seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging due process and equal protection violations.
- The court initially entered a temporary restraining order preventing enforcement of sanctions while the case proceeded.
- On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court addressed whether the federal constitutional and § 1983 claims could proceed and whether preliminary injunctive relief was warranted.

## Issues

1. Whether the NCAA’s enforcement of eligibility rules and sanctions against D.U. constituted action under color of state law for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
2. Whether student-athletes have a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest in participating in intercollegiate athletics, postseason competition, or televised games sufficient to trigger due process protections.
3. Whether, assuming state action, the NCAA’s eligibility rules or their application to the Canadian hockey players violated equal protection.

## Decision

- The court granted summary judgment to the NCAA and denied plaintiffs’ requests for summary judgment and preliminary injunctive relief.
- The court held the NCAA was not a state actor in enforcing its eligibility rules and imposing sanctions on D.U.; therefore, § 1983 did not apply.
- The court held the student-athletes lacked a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest in playing intercollegiate sports, postseason contests, or televised games; the due process claim failed.
- The court rejected the equal protection claim, reasoning that the challenged eligibility rules were, at minimum, rationally related to legitimate objectives such as preserving amateurism and competitive balance.

## Legal Principles

- A § 1983 claim requires action under color of state law; a private, voluntary association is not transformed into a state actor merely because many members are public institutions or because its rules significantly affect public universities.
- Participation in intercollegiate athletics, including postseason play and television exposure, is not a liberty or property interest protected by the Due Process Clause.
- Absent a suspect classification or fundamental right, athletic eligibility classifications are reviewed under rational-basis principles and are upheld if reasonably related to legitimate regulatory aims.
- Preliminary injunctive relief is inappropriate where plaintiffs cannot show likely success on the merits of federal constitutional claims and the asserted harms are collateral to any protected constitutional interest.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed the federal constitutional challenge to NCAA eligibility enforcement, holding that the NCAA’s conduct was not state action under § 1983 and that student-athletes have no due process or equal protection right to participate in intercollegiate hockey, postseason play, or televised competition.


Colorado Seminary (Univ. of Denver) v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 417 F. Supp. 885 (D. Colo. 1976)