IN THE Supreme Court of the United States OCTOBER TERM, 1977 No. 77 REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA, NEIL C. SHERBURNE, WENDA W. MOORE, LOANNE R. THRANE, C. PETER MAGRATH, DAVID W. FRENCH, VERA SCHLETZER, and JOHN KAREKEN, VS. Petitioners, THE NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, Respondent. PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO Petitioners respectfully pray that a writ of certiorari issue to review the order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit entered in this proceeding on August 2, 1977. OPINIONS BELOW The opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit which dissolved the temporary injunction granted by the district court is printed in Appendix A 2 and is reported at 560 F.2d 352. The opinion of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota is printed in Appendix B and is reported at 422 F. Supp. 1158. The opinion of the Minnesota state district court in the connected case of Thompson v. University of Minnesota is printed in Appendix C hereto. JURISDICTION The order of the Court of Appeals was entered on August 2, 1977. This petition for a writ of certiorari was filed within ninety (90) days of that date. This Court's jurisdiction is invoked under 28 U.S.C. §1254(1). QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether federal courts may engage in a de novo review of University disciplinary proceedings and substitute its judgment for that of University of Minnesota officials when the University of Minnesota's decision is supported by evidence. 2. Whether federal courts may give precedence to NCAA determinations of violations of its eligibility rules made in proceedings offending the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment over University determinations of no violations made in proceedings conforming to the due process clause. 3. Whether the void for vagueness doctrine contained within the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to NCAA eligibility rules enforced in University of Minnesota disciplinary proceedings relating to student-athletes. 3 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS, STATUTES AND REGULATIONS INVOLVED This case involves the Fourteenth Amendment' to the Constitution of the United States and the Civil Rights Act of April 20, 1871, Ch. 22 §1, 17 Stat. 13, 42 U.S.C. §1983.2 Additionally, this case involves the conditions and obligations of membership in the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) set forth in Article 4, §2 of the NCAA Constitution and official interpretation 18 (O.I. 18) thereof3, and 89 of the NCAA's "Official Procedure Governing the NCAA Enforcement Program" (enforcement procedure). Finally, this case involves several NCAA 1The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides in pertinent part, that: [N]or shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. 242 U.S.C. §1983 provides: Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. 3NCAA Constitution 4-2-(a) and O.I. 18 thereof in pertinent parts provide: Section 2. Conditions and Obligations of Membership. The members of this Association agree: (a) To administer their athletic programs in accordance with the Constitution, the Bylaws and other legislation of the Association; O.I. 18. If a student-athlete is ineligible under the terms of the Constitution, Bylaws or other legislation of the Associaion, the instition shall be obligated immediately to apply the applicable rule to the student-athlete and withhold him from all intercollegiate competition. Subsequent to this action, the member institution may appeal to the NCAA Council, or a subcommittee designated by the Council to act for it, if the member concludes that the circumstances warrant restoration of the student-athlete's eligibility. 4Section 9 of the NCAA's enforcement procedures provides: Section 9. When the Committee or NCAA Council finds that there has been a violation of the Constitution or Bylaws affecting the eligibility of an individual student-athlete or student-athletes, the institution involved and its conference (if the institution involved holds such affiliation with an allied member) shall be notified of the violation and 4 eligibility rules set forth in the NCAA Constitution including: Article 3, §1-(a)-(3);5 Article 3, §1-(g)-(6); and Article 3, § 4-(a)-(2)." STATEMENT OF THE CASE A. Statement of Facts. The impasse that resulted in this litigation involves the application of the NCAA enforcement procedures to the University of Minnesota. The University of Minnesota is 8 the name(s) of the student-athlete(s) involved, it being understood that if the institution fails to take appropriate action, the involved institution shall be cited to show cause under the Association's regular enforcement procedures why it should not be disciplined for failure to do so. It is understood that if an institution concludes that continued application of the rule(s) would work an injustice on any student-athlete, an appeal shall be submitted to the Council and promptly acted upon by the body or a sub-committee designated by it. 5NCAA Constitution 3-1-(a)-(3) in pertinent part provides: (a) Any student-athlete who receives financial assistance other than intercollegiate sport if: . . . (3) He has directly or indirectly used his athletic skill for pay in any form in that sport . . . NCAA Constitution 3-1-(g)-(6) in pertinent part provides: (6) Spe (g) The following pracuces shall constitute 'pay' for participation. in intercollegiate athletics and are expressly prohibited: cial arrangements designed to provide a student-athlete, his relatives or other friends with extra benefits not made available to members of the student body in general or their relatives or other friends. Special arrangements specifically prohibited include, but are not limited to: special discounts or payment arrangements on purchases; loans without interest; guarantees of bond; regular or periodic use of an automobile without (or at a reduced) charge; transportation to or from the site of a summer job without (or at a reduced) charge. NCAA Constitution 3-4-(a)-(2) in pertinent part provides: (a) A student-athlete shall not be eligibile for participation in an that administered by his institution shall not be eligible for intercollegiate competition, except as provided in Constitution 3-1-(b), and except where: ... (2) Assistance is awarded solely on bases having no relationship to athletic ability. Hereafter, the University of Minnesota will be used to refer to the Regents of the University of Minnesota, the corporate entity commonly referred to as the University of Minnesota and the individual petitioners herein including: Dr. C. Peter Magrath, President (ex officio) of the Board of Regents and Chancellor (President) of the University of Minnesota; three individual members of the Board of Regents, the governing body of the University of Minnesota; and three members of the University's Assembly Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics (ACIA), the committee charged with supervising intercollegiate athletics at the University of Minnesota. 5 one of approximately 830 four year colleges and universities in the United States that are members of the NCAA, a non-incorporated association. The NCAA exercises monopolistic control over major intercollegiate athletic programs in this country. It annually publishes a manual which includes, inter alia, its constitution, bylaws, enforcement procedures, and recommended policies and practices for intercollegiate athletics. The NCAA's Committee on Infractions has primary responsibility for enforcing NCAA rules. The enforcement procedures authorize this Committee to investigate possible violations of NCAA rules and to dispose of less serious violations without a hearing or to initiate an official inquiry. An official inquiry requires the member institution to investigate the NCAA charges and to respond to such allegations. After a hearing on the member institution's response, the Committee on Infractions determines facts and violations and imposes penalties for such violations. A member institution can appeal the Committee's findings, the penalty, or both, to the NCAA Council, a eighteen member body elected by the membership to direct NCAA affairs between annual conventions. Although it finds violations affecting student-athletes, the NCAA does not declare student-athletes ineligible itself. It operates indirectly on the student-athletes through its conditions and obligations of membership that require a member institution to apply eligibility rules to studentathletes. The Committee on Infractions makes the dispositive determinations of facts and violations affecting the eligibility of a member's student-athletes without any par 9 See Constitution 4-2-(a) and O.I. 18, n. 3, supra and Section 9 of the enforcement procedures, n. 4, supra. |