Homeschooler Participation in High School Sports (continued)

The court applied the "rational bases" test to determine if the rule was constitutional, and determined that Rule 214 is rationally related to the State's "valid and legitimate interest in eliminating or minimizing athletic recruitment problems in secondary schools." (Id.) This finding is significant to a homeschooler challenging Rules 227 because the school only needs to show that the rules are rationally related to some perceived legitimate interest, such as overseeing the student's education or prevention of recruitment. The Steffes court stated (quoting In re U.S. ex rel. Missouri State High Sch. Etc. 8th Cir. 1982) 682 R.2d 147): "If the classification has some 'reasonable' basis, it does not offend the Constitution simply because the classification 'is not made with mathematical nicety or because in practice it results in some inequality. Once a rational relationship exists, and it exists here, judicial scrutiny must cease. Whether the rule is wise or creates undue individual hardship are policy decisions better left to legislative and administrative bodies. Schools themselves are by far the better agencies to devise rules and restrictions governing extracurricular activities. Judicial intervention in school policy should always be reduced to a minimum." (Steffes, supra, at 749.) In Jones the same appellate court applied the same principles and upheld the school's interpretation of another eligibility rule, which denied a fifth year high school student the right to play varsity football. It reiterated the Steffes findings, and added that: "Education Code section 35179 authorizes voluntary associations such as the CIF to enact and enforce rules relating to eligibility for, and participation in, interscholastic athletics." The court noted: "The rationale behind the CIF's interpretation is the rule's promotion of a high school education over high school athletics."

Challenging the CIF Bylaws/Rules

Kent Steffes also argued that Rule 214 violates state law because the making and enforcing of rules governing interscholastic athletics is limited to the Department of Education and the Superintendent of Public Instruction.. Again, the Steffes court disagreed and held that "although Education Code section 33352 gives the Department of Education 'general supervision over the courses of physical education,' sections 35179 and 33353 give voluntary associations, such as CIF, authority to enact and enforce rules relating to eligibility for, and participation in, interscholastic athletics." This decision means that any court following the Steffes decision will enforce the CIF bylaws against students wishing to participate in interscholastic athletics.

As an appellate court decision, Steffes does not carry the same weight as a California Supreme Court decision, although courts not following it can be expected to discuss and distinguish it from their facts. Trial court judges in the same district are likely to follow the decision because they realize that a contrary decision will be appealed to the same court that made the decision. Even though it will be given serious consideration by any trial court judge or appellate judges in other districts, they are not compelled to follow it if they disagree with the basis of the decision. The California Supreme Court, given the right facts, might overrule Steffes. However, the expense, time constraints and burdens of litigation would have to be balanced against the likelihood of success and the risk of setting a bad precedent.

The biggest risk is what happens if a student obtains a court order compelling the school to allow him or her to compete, and then loses the underlying lawsuit. According to CIF rule 228, CIF or one of its sections can, among other things, require that individual and team records be stricken, require that individual and team awards be returned, require that team victories be forfeited, make the team ineligible for future championships or invitationals, and require the school return its share of net receipts from any competition. Because of the length of time for a lawsuit to get heard, a student challenging CIF rules needs to obtain a restraining order requiring the school to allow sports participation while the lawsuit is pending. However, the punishment is so onerous against the school if the student loses, the attitudes of the school, coach and teammates are likely to be less than cordial.