For all you case law enthusiasts on USCHO, the following is a particularly interesting case which could represent a precedent for NCAA impunity in regards to the recently adopted law by the North Dakota legislature requiring UND to retain the nickname and logo, and the NCAA's right, regardless of a state law injunction, to impose sanctions on member schools. It's possible that maybe one of the main reasons for the NCAA cancelling their recent
meeting with ND legislative officials had something to do with the precedent of this case or cases like it, as well as the potential for a media circus and showdown with the ND officials over the recently adopted law.
Jerry Tarkanian (Tark the Shark), the retired UNLV basketball coach currently has more collegiate wins than any men's coach in history. But allegedly Tarkanian spent most of his career as a Division I coach in a battle with the NCAA.
Here is the result:
IS THE NCAA A STATE ACTOR? : NCAA v. Tarkanian (1988)
In National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Tarkanian, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, held that the NCAA was a private entity and therefore was not required to extend constitutional due process to its members. In a footnote, however, the Supreme Court provided hope for future suits against other athletic associations by proclaiming, "The situation would, of course, be different if the membership consisted entirely of institutions located within the same State, many of them public institutions created by the same sovereign."
Jerry Tarkanian was the basketball coach at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV). The NCAA cited Tarkanian and UNLV for thirty-eight NCAA rule violations. The NCAA proposed a two-year probationary period and ordered UNLV to show cause why further penalties should not be imposed if UNLV refused to sever ties with Tarkanian. After pursuing administrative appeals, UNLV pondered its options and chose to recognize the University's delegation to the NCAA of the power to act as ultimate arbiter of these matters.
UNLV notified Tarkanian that it was going to suspend him. Tarkanian filed a Section 1983 action in Nevada state court against UNLV, alleging a due process deprivation. The state trial court permanently enjoined Tarkanian's suspension. After appeals, the addition of the NCAA as a party, and removal to federal court, the federal district court concluded that the NCAA's conduct constituted state action. The court reaffirmed an earlier injunction barring UNLV from disciplining Tarkanian, and also enjoined the NCAA from conducting any further proceedings against the university.
The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's injunction, again holding that the NCAA had engaged in state action and could therefore be sued under Section 1983. The case eventually came before the United States Supreme Court, which agreed that UNLV was a state actor, but reiterated that the main question was whether UNLV's adherence to NCAA rules and recommendations converted the NCAA into a state actor. The Court looked at the rulemaking relationship between the NCAA and its member institutions. Even though UNLV, acting for the State of Nevada, had some input into the NCAA rules, the Supreme Court believed that the NCAA rules were the rules of the collective NCAA membership rather than the law of one particular state. Additionally, the Court stated that Nevada was not required to adopt the rules of the NCAA and could have instead attempted to amend the NCAA rules or create its own rules. As evidence that there was no partnership between the two, the Court looked at their antagonistic legal relationship.
Tarkanian argued that the NCAA engaged in state action because UNLV had delegated investigative and enforcement powers to the NCAA. The Court recognized that under certain conditions such a delegation could convert a private actor into a public one, but did not believe that UNLV had instituted such a delegation here. The dissent, authored by Justice White, argued that the NCAA engaged in state action because it acted jointly with state officials, UNLV, who engaged in state action. As an example, in the membership agreement, the parties agreed that the NCAA would conduct investigations and hearings when violations of the NCAA rules were alleged and that UNLV would be bound to the NCAA's findings. The dissent believed that UNLV had no choice under the agreement but to comply with the NCAA's recommendation to suspend Tarkanian. Withdrawing from the NCAA was not a viable option.
The Supreme Court concluded that the NCAA was not a state actor. The decision essentially meant that future Section 1983 constitutional challenges against the NCAA policies would have very little chance of success. It insulated the actions of the NCAA from judicial review, thus leaving the constitutional rights of student-athletes, coaches, and other individuals unprotected from infringement by the NCAA.
