## Facts

- Texas high-school students and their parents challenged Section 21 of the University Interscholastic League (UIL) Constitution and Contest Rules.
- Section 21 imposed a one-year suspension of varsity eligibility for any student who attended specified athletic training camps.
- The UIL, a voluntary association tied to Texas public schools and the University of Texas, administered interscholastic athletics and related eligibility rules.
- Plaintiffs alleged the rule unconstitutionally interfered with students’ participation in camps and parents’ decisions about their children’s training.
- The UIL asserted the rule served legitimate objectives: preserving competitive balance between students with unequal access to expensive camps, limiting overzealous adult pressure, and preventing camps from being used for recruiting.
- The district court enjoined enforcement of Section 21 and declared it unconstitutional as applied.
- The UIL officials appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the UIL’s Section 21 violated the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause by conditioning varsity eligibility on nonattendance at specified camps.
2. Whether Section 21 violated the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause by treating students who attended specified camps differently.
3. Whether the challenged rule implicated a fundamental right or a suspect classification, requiring heightened scrutiny.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court and upheld Section 21.
- The court held the UIL’s operation constituted state action subject to the Fourteenth Amendment.
- The court held participation in interscholastic athletics is not a fundamental right, and the rule did not employ a suspect classification.
- Applying rational basis review, the court concluded Section 21 was rationally related to legitimate governmental interests in public education and school athletics.
- The injunction against enforcing Section 21 was vacated.

## Legal Principles

- A state-associated interscholastic athletic organization’s eligibility rules constitute state action when the organization is sufficiently connected to public institutions.
- There is no fundamental constitutional right to participate in interscholastic athletics; eligibility regulations generally receive rational basis review absent a suspect class or fundamental right.
- Under rational basis review, an athletic eligibility rule is valid if it is rationally related to legitimate interests such as competitive fairness, limiting recruiting, and supporting educational objectives.
- A rule that conditions participation in a school-sponsored extracurricular program does not, without more, violate parental liberty interests where it does not prohibit the underlying private conduct but only affects program eligibility.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit upheld the UIL rule suspending varsity eligibility for attending certain athletic camps, holding that no fundamental right or suspect classification was involved and that the rule was rationally related to legitimate state interests in regulating interscholastic athletics.


Kite v. Marshall, 661 F.2d 1027 (5th Cir. 1981)