NCAA v. Smith

Last updated

National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Smith
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued January 20, 1999
Decided February 23, 1999
Full case nameNational Collegiate Athletic Association, Petitioner v. R. M. Smith
Citations525 U.S. 459 ( more )
119 S. Ct. 924; 142 L. Ed. 2d 929; 1999 U.S. LEXIS 1511; 67 U.S.L.W. 4130; 99 Cal. Daily Op. Service 1345; 99 Daily Journal DAR 1669; 1999 Colo. J. C.A.R. 878; 12 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 110
Case history
PriorSmith v. NCAA, 978 F. Supp. 213 (W.D. Pa. 1997); affirmed in part, reversed in part, 139 F.3d 180 (3d Cir. 1998); cert. granted, 524 U.S. 982(1998).
SubsequentSmith v. NCAA, 266 F.3d 152 (3d Cir. 2001)
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens  · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
David Souter  · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg  · Stephen Breyer
Case opinion
MajorityGinsburg, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C.   § 1681, et seq.

National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Smith, 525 U.S. 459 (1999), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the NCAA's receipt of dues payments from colleges and universities which received federal funds, was not sufficient to subject the NCAA to a lawsuit under Title IX. [1]

Contents

Background

Renee M. Smith, an intercollegiate volleyball player, had played volleyball for two seasons from the fall of 1991 to 1993 at St. Bonaventure University. Smith graduated from St. Bonaventure University during the 1994 - 1995 athletic year and later enrolled in a postgraduate program at the University of Pittsburgh for the 1995 - 1996 athletic year. Smith had hoped to play volleyball for the University of Pittsburgh but was denied athletic eligibility by the NCAA on the basis of its Post Baccalaureate restrictions. Smith and The University of Pittsburgh applied for a waiver from the National Collegiate Athletic Association, to lift the restrictions on the athletic eligibility of graduate students. However the waiver was denied by the NCAA. [1]

Procedural history

In August 1996, Smith filed a lawsuit pro se against the NCAA, alleging that the NCAA’s decision to not allow her to play intercollegiate volleyball at the University of Pittsburgh and Hofstra University on the basis of her sex, in that the NCAA grants more waivers for athletic eligibility restrictions to male than female post graduate student athletes. The NCAA attempted to have the case dismissed on the grounds that it did not receive federal assistance. This would exempt the NCAA from compliance with Title IX which states that "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance..." The district court dismissed the case, claiming that Smith could not claim that Title IX was applicable. [2] Smith then amended her claim.

The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit later reversed the district court's decision. [3] The NCAA then petitioned for Supreme Court review. They claimed that the court decision did not agree with the previous court case Department of Transportation v. Paralyzed Veterans of America, [4] which prohibits discrimination against any handicapped person in “any program or activity receiving any federal financial assistance.” The Supreme Court granted certiorari , in order to find out if a private organization such as the NCAA, that does not receive federal financial assistance, can be subject to Title IX simply because it receives funds from organizations that do receive federal financial assistance, making the NCAA indirectly federally funded.

Opinion of the Court

The Supreme Court came to a unanimous decision ruling that the NCAA cannot be sued under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and remanded the case for further proceedings complying with this decision. The Supreme Court held that allegations did not exist that state that the NCAA uses the funds from its institutions that are federally funded, to provide any students with any form of financial aid. They stressed that only institutions that are federally funded directly can be subject to coverage by Title IX. [1]

The NCAA was represented on its appeal to the Supreme Court by John Roberts, who would later become Chief Justice of the United States in 2005. [5]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">National Collegiate Athletic Association</span> American collegiate athletic organization

The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) is a nonprofit organization that regulates student athletics among about 1,100 schools in the United States, and Canada. It also organizes the athletic programs of colleges and helps over 500,000 college student athletes who compete annually in college sports. The organization is headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Title IX</span> United States federal law prohibiting sex discrimination in federally-funded education programs

Title IX is the most commonly used name for the federal civil rights law in the United States that was enacted as part of the Education Amendments of 1972. It prohibits sex-based discrimination in any school or any other education program that receives funding from the federal government. This is Public Law No. 92‑318, 86 Stat. 235, codified at 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681–1688.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Association for Intercollegiate Athletics for Women</span> US womens college sports association

The Association for Intercollegiate Athletics for Women (AIAW) was a college athletics organization in the United States, founded in 1971 to govern women's college competitions in the country and to administer national championships. It evolved out of the "Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics for Women" (CIAW), founded in 1967. The association was one of the biggest advancements for women's athletics on the collegiate level. Throughout the 1970s, the AIAW grew rapidly in membership and influence, in parallel with the national growth of women's sports following the enactment of Title IX.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">NCAA Division III</span> Division of the National Collegiate Athletic Association

NCAA Division III (D-III) is a division of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) in the United States. D-III consists of athletic programs at colleges and universities that choose not to offer athletic scholarships to their student-athletes.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">College athletics in the United States</span> Component of American higher education

College athletics in the United States or college sports in the United States refers primarily to sports and athletic training and competition organized and funded by institutions of tertiary education.

Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1991), was a case in the United States Supreme Court that upheld Department of Health and Human Services regulations prohibiting employees in federally funded family-planning facilities from counseling a patient on abortion. The department had removed all family planning programs that involving abortions. Physicians and clinics challenged this decision within the Supreme Court, arguing that the First Amendment was violated due to the implementation of this new policy. The Supreme Court, by a 5–4 verdict, allowed the regulation to go into effect, holding that the regulation was a reasonable interpretation of the Public Health Service Act, and that the First Amendment is not violated when the government merely chooses to "fund one activity to the exclusion of another."

An athletic scholarship is a form of scholarship to attend a college or university or a private high school awarded to an individual based predominantly on their ability to play in a sport. Athletic scholarships are common in the United States and to a certain extent in Canada, but in the vast majority of countries in the world they are rare or non-existent.

Redshirt, in United States college athletics, is a delay or suspension of an athlete's participation in order to lengthen their period of eligibility. Typically, a student's athletic eligibility in a given sport is four seasons, aligning with the four years of academic classes typically required to earn a bachelor's degree at an American college or university. However, in a redshirt year, student athletes may attend classes at the college or university, practice with an athletic team, and "suit up" for play – but they may compete in only a limited number of games. Using this mechanism, a student athlete has at most five academic years to use the four years of eligibility, thus becoming what is termed a fifth-year senior.

Grove City College v. Bell, 465 U.S. 555 (1984), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that Title IX, which applies only to colleges and universities that receive federal funds, could be applied to a private school that refused direct federal funding but for which a large number of students had received federally funded scholarships. The Court also held that the federal government could require a statutorily mandated "assurance of compliance" with Title IX even though no evidence had been presented to suggest that Grove City College had discriminated. However, the Court also held that the regulation would apply only to the institution's financial aid department, not to the school as a whole.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Milan Smith</span> American judge (born 1942)

Milan Dale Smith Jr. is an American attorney and jurist serving as a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Smith's brother, Gordon H. Smith, was a Republican U.S. Senator from 1997 to 2009. Milan Smith is neither a Republican nor a Democrat.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tower Amendment</span> Proposed amendment to Title IX

The Tower Amendment was a 1974 proposed amendment to the United States Securities Exchange Act of 1934, named after Texas Republican Senator John Tower, who introduced it. The Tower Amendment was intended to modify Title IX.

Christine Grant was a Scottish-born American athlete, coach, administrator, and advocate for women's college athletics. Dr. Grant served as the athletic director at the University of Iowa from 1973 until 2000. She was inducted into the University of Iowa Athletics Hall of Fame in 2006. Grant was also inducted into the Women's Basketball Hall of Fame in 2017.

Student athlete is a term used principally in the United States to describe students enrolled at postsecondary educational institutions, principally colleges and universities, but also at secondary schools, who participate in an organized competitive sport sponsored by that educational institution or school. The term student-athlete was coined in 1964 by Walter Byers, the first executive director of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). The term is also interchangeable with the synonymous term “varsity athlete”.

United States v. American Library Association, 539 U.S. 194 (2003), was a decision in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that the United States Congress has the authority to require public schools and libraries receiving E-Rate discounts to install web filtering software as a condition of receiving federal funding. In a plurality opinion, the Supreme Court ruled that public school and library usage of Internet filtering software does not violate their patrons' First Amendment free speech rights and that the Children's Internet Protection Act is not unconstitutional.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sovereign immunity in the United States</span> Legal protection of federal, state and tribal governments

In United States law, the federal government as well as state and tribal governments generally enjoy sovereign immunity, also known as governmental immunity, from lawsuits. Local governments in most jurisdictions enjoy immunity from some forms of suit, particularly in tort. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act provides foreign governments, including state-owned companies, with a related form of immunity—state immunity—that shields them from lawsuits except in relation to certain actions relating to commercial activity in the United States. The principle of sovereign immunity in US law was inherited from the English common law legal maxim rex non potest peccare, meaning "the king can do no wrong." In some situations, sovereign immunity may be waived by law.

Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez, 531 U.S. 533 (2001), is a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States concerning the constitutionality of funding restrictions imposed by the United States Congress. At issue were restrictions on the Legal Services Corporation (LSC), a private, nonprofit corporation established by Congress. The restrictions prohibited LSC attorneys from representing clients attempting to amend existing welfare law. The case was brought by Carmen Velazquez, whose LSC-funded attorneys sought to challenge existing welfare provisions since they believed that it was the only way to get Velazquez financial relief.

Smith v. Kansas City Title & Trust Co., 255 U.S. 180 (1921), was a United States Supreme Court case that helped define the range and scope of federal question jurisdiction in state corporate law matters. The case dealt with whether or not a district court had the power to uphold the constitutional validity of the Federal Farm Loan Act of 1916.

The definition of amateurism within the context of collegiate sports has evolved since it was first pronounced by the NCAA upon its inception in 1906. In its early stages, changes in the NCAA's core beliefs in what a student-athlete should be rewarded and allowed to accept financially for their athletic talents had its effects on the definition of amateurism. Over the course of the 20th and early 21st century, regulatory changes, court claims, and the beliefs of NCAA authority about student-athlete compensation further developed what an amateur collegiate athlete is entitled to receive. This evolution is what impacted the evolving logistics of the NCAA Bylaw 12, which explains the current definition of amateurism and what it grants or restricts a collegiate athlete to be able to receive as compensation for their participation. These guidelines have been described to both benefit and unjustifiably limit the student-athlete and the success of institutions’ athletic performance. This debate has been a strong driver in court claims against the NCAA and the mainstream controversy about what student-athletes should have the right to receive financially.

National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston, 594 U.S. ___ (2021), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case concerning the compensation of collegiate athletes within the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). It followed from a previous case, O'Bannon v. NCAA, in which it was found that the NCAA was profiting from the namesake and likenesses of college athletes. The case dealt with the NCAA's restrictions on providing college athletes with non-cash compensation for academic-related purposes, such as computers and internships, which the NCAA maintained was to prevent the appearance that the student athletes were being paid to play or treated as professional athletes. Lower courts had ruled that these restrictions were in violation of antitrust law, which the Supreme Court affirmed in a unanimous ruling in June 2021.

The federal government of the United States has limited authority to act on education, and education policy serves to support the education systems of state and local governments through funding and regulation of elementary, secondary, and post-secondary education. The Department of Education serves as the primary government organization responsible for enacting federal education policy in the United States.

References

  1. 1 2 3 NCAA v. Smith, 525 U.S. 459 (1999).
  2. Smith v. NCAA, 978F. Supp.213 ( W.D. Pa. 1997).
  3. Smith v. NCAA, 139F.3d180 ( 3d Cir. 1998).
  4. Dep't of Transp. v. Paralyzed Veterans of America, 477 U.S. 597 (1986).
  5. "Chief Justice John G. Roberts Cases before the Supreme Court". Washington University Law. Washington University School of Law. Retrieved May 4, 2018.