## Facts

- The NCAA regulated intercollegiate athletics and required randomly selected student-athletes in postseason championships and football bowl games to provide urine samples under monitored conditions.
- Samples were chemically analyzed for prohibited substances; a positive result could lead to disqualification.
- Stanford student-athletes challenged the program under the California Constitution’s privacy clause, objecting to (1) disclosure of medications and medical-condition information, (2) monitored urination, and (3) testing revealing chemical substances in the body.
- The trial court found the program an unconstitutional privacy invasion and permanently enjoined enforcement against Stanford athletes; it also reasoned there was no compelling need and that the program was overbroad.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed; the NCAA sought review.

## Issues

1. What elements must a plaintiff prove to establish a claim under article I, section 1 of the California Constitution (right to privacy)?
2. Did the NCAA’s postseason drug-testing program constitute a serious invasion of Stanford student-athletes’ protected privacy interests under the circumstances?
3. If the program invaded privacy, was the invasion justified by legitimate and important competing interests and sufficiently tailored?

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal and dissolved the permanent injunction.
- The court held the NCAA program, as applied, did not violate the California constitutional right to privacy.
- The court recognized the program implicated informational and bodily privacy interests but concluded the athletes’ expectations of privacy were reduced in the intercollegiate athletics context.
- The court held the NCAA’s interests in athlete health and safety, fair competition, and the integrity of intercollegiate sports justified the testing program as implemented.

## Legal Principles

- A plaintiff alleging a violation of the California constitutional right to privacy must show: (1) a legally protected privacy interest, (2) a reasonable expectation of privacy in the circumstances, and (3) a serious invasion of that interest.
- If the plaintiff makes the prima facie showing, the court evaluates whether the intrusion is justified by legitimate and important competing interests and whether the means are sufficiently tailored in relation to those interests.
- Privacy expectations are context-dependent; voluntary participation in a regulated athletic program with medical supervision and eligibility requirements may diminish the reasonableness of an asserted expectation of privacy.
- Not every nontrivial intrusion triggers invalidation; the constitutional analysis requires a threshold showing of “serious” invasion and then a balancing against countervailing interests.

## Conclusion

The court used the challenge to define a structured framework for California constitutional privacy claims and, applying that framework, upheld the NCAA’s limited postseason drug-testing protocol because student-athletes’ privacy expectations were reduced in the competitive athletics setting and the program was justified by important health, fairness, and integrity interests with sufficient safeguards.


Hill v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 865 P.2d 633 (Cal. 1994)