## Facts

- Bilal Avant attended a private high school (Andrean) and played basketball and baseball, including varsity as a junior.
- After his junior year, Avant transferred to a public high school (Roosevelt) that served his residential area; his parents did not change residence.
- Both schools were members of the Indiana High School Athletic Association (IHSAA) and subject to IHSAA eligibility rules, including the Transfer Rule and Hardship Rule.
- The Transfer Rule generally granted immediate varsity eligibility for transfers accompanied by a parental move, and imposed a 365-day varsity ineligibility period for non-moving transfers, with limited exceptions and possible junior-varsity eligibility.
- The Hardship Rule provided a narrow exception intended to reduce severe effects of eligibility rules in limited circumstances, including certain financial hardship situations.
- After reviewing Avant’s transfer materials and conducting a hearing, the IHSAA Executive Committee found Avant ineligible for varsity athletics for the school year but granted junior-varsity eligibility.
- The Committee concluded Avant did not qualify for immediate varsity eligibility under the Transfer Rule and did not satisfy the Hardship Rule; it found athletics were a factor in his transfer decision but not the primary reason.
- Avant sued IHSAA and sought injunctive relief to permit varsity participation.
- The trial court granted a preliminary injunction preventing IHSAA from enforcing Avant’s varsity ineligibility for the basketball season.

## Issues

1. Under what limits may courts review and enjoin eligibility decisions of the IHSAA as a voluntary association?
2. Whether the Transfer Rule’s moving vs. non-moving classification, together with the Hardship Rule, violated the Indiana Constitution’s Equal Privileges and Immunities Clause (Ind. Const. art. 1, § 23).
3. Whether IHSAA’s denial of varsity eligibility to Avant was arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.
4. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by issuing a preliminary injunction overriding IHSAA’s eligibility determination.

## Decision

- The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the preliminary injunction.
- The court held Avant had not shown a likelihood of success on claims that IHSAA’s rules or their application were unconstitutional or unlawful on the preliminary-injunction record.
- The court concluded IHSAA’s decision-making process (hearing, findings, and application of published criteria) supported that its determination was not arbitrary or capricious.
- Because the injunction effectively substituted the trial court’s judgment for IHSAA’s in an area generally committed to the association’s discretion, the trial court abused its discretion in granting the injunction.

## Legal Principles

- Courts generally defer to eligibility determinations of voluntary athletic associations and will intervene only where the association acts arbitrarily, capriciously, contrary to law, or in violation of constitutional guarantees.
- Eligibility classifications distinguishing between transfers with a parental change of residence and non-moving transfers may be upheld when rationally related to legitimate objectives such as deterring recruitment and “school jumping.”
- Under Indiana’s Equal Privileges and Immunities Clause (art. 1, § 23), a classification is permissible when based on inherent or legitimate distinctions and reasonably related to the rule’s purpose.
- A preliminary injunction requires a showing including a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits; courts should be cautious about preliminary relief that disrupts internal governance decisions absent a strong showing of illegality.

## Conclusion

The appellate court reversed the preliminary injunction because the Transfer Rule’s moving/non-moving distinction and the limited hardship exception were rationally related to preventing recruitment and transfer manipulation, and IHSAA’s denial of varsity eligibility was supported by a reasoned process rather than arbitrary action.


Ind. High Sch. Athletic Ass’n, Inc. v. Avant, 650 N.E.2d 1164 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995)