A federal judge in Alabama has dismissed a lawsuit by two Mary G. Montgomery High School football players who were declared ineligible over a recruiting violation, ruling that playing interscholastic sports is not a constitutionally protected right for due process purposes.
U.S. District Judge Bill Lewis dismissed the case without prejudice on Friday, NBC 15 reported on October 26. He rejected the federal claims and declined to decide the state law claims, which leaves the families free to pursue those arguments in state court. The players, high school students whose mothers joined the suit on their behalf, are not named here.
How the dispute started
The Alabama High School Athletic Association found that Mary G. Montgomery violated its recruiting rule in connection with "Freshman Signing Day" events, NBC 15 reported. On May 18, it declared both players ineligible.
The families sued the association. They argued it relied on recruiting rule language that had never been validly adopted, and they claimed violations of free speech, due process and equal protection.
What the judge decided
The ruling turned on a basic constitutional point. The Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause protects life, liberty and property. To bring a due process claim, a plaintiff first has to show a protected interest. Judge Lewis held that participation in high school athletics is not one, NBC 15 reported. Without that interest, the question of whether the association gave the players a fair process never comes up.
He also found that the association had a legitimate interest in preventing recruiting and protecting competitive fairness, and that its limits on communications with prospective students were rationally related to that goal. That is rational basis review, the most lenient test courts apply, and rules rarely fail it.
The judge did not decide the issue the families most wanted resolved: whether the recruiting rule was properly adopted under Alabama law. That is a state law question, and federal courts often leave such questions to state judges once the federal claims are gone.
Other parts of the case fell away on procedural grounds. The mothers' own claims, and the claims against Principal David Diaz and Superintendent Chresal Threadgill, were dismissed for lack of standing. The players' request for immediate relief was denied as moot. The judge also noted that the families waited months to seek emergency relief, a delay he said would have weighed against an injunction anyway. Former coach Zach Golson has separately challenged his own suspension and removal.
Analysis: why the college cases look different
Eligibility lawsuits are everywhere in sports this fall, and athletes have won some of them. The difference often comes down to the legal theory.
Court: Federal district court. Jefferson Circuit Court (state).
Main theory: Constitutional claims: due process, free speech, equal protection. Breach of contract, with athletes as intended beneficiaries of NCAA agreements.
Key ruling: No protected interest in playing high school sports. NCAA rule applied in a way "so arbitrary that it breaches the contract".
Result: Dismissed, state claims may be refiled. Temporary injunction granted October 16.
In Kentucky, Jefferson Circuit Judge Brian Edwards granted a temporary injunction on October 16 that could let athletes at Louisville, Kentucky and other schools compete in 2026-27 despite the NCAA's four-season limit, WDRB reported. "The Court can reach no other conclusion other than that this is arbitrary," Edwards said. The Kentucky Court of Appeals had dissolved his earlier order on October 2, and the NCAA is expected to appeal again.
The newsroom's reading: constitutional claims against athletic associations face a high bar, because courts generally treat sports participation as a privilege. Contract and state law claims do not require a protected right, only a broken promise or an unlawful rule. That is why the Alabama families' best remaining argument, that the recruiting rule was never validly adopted, now sits in state court.
What comes next
Because the dismissal was without prejudice, the families can refile their state law claims. For the players, time is the problem. The football season is well underway, and the judge already noted the months that passed before they sought emergency relief.
Sports cases have been landing in courtrooms all year, from eligibility fights to federal betting prosecutions like the one we covered in Malik Beasley Moves Toward a Guilty Plea in the NBA Betting Case. Campus disputes can also leave a long legal tail, as we noted in The Duke Lacrosse Case's Shadow Over Campus Cases.
Two Taps News stories summarize reporting and the analysis discussed on Two Taps and Friends. They are not legal advice. Read our standards.
