The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals has dismissed an appeal filed by the Alabama High School Athletic Association (AHSAA) regarding a ruling about a high school football player’s eligibility. The court found that the trial court, which initially made the ruling, lacked the proper jurisdiction to do so.
Background of the Case
The case began in September 2024 when W.T.K., a minor, through his father, sued the AHSAA. The lawsuit claimed the AHSAA violated the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution by exempting competitive cheerleading from its rule about transfer students. This rule generally prevents students who transfer schools from playing varsity sports for a year. W.T.K.’s parents hadn’t made a legitimate move to the new school’s zone, meaning he was ineligible to play. He sought an order to let him play varsity sports.
The trial court quickly issued a temporary restraining order (TRO), allowing the player to participate in games. The AHSAA tried to get the TRO removed, arguing that the player hadn’t followed the proper legal procedures. The trial court held a hearing and ultimately denied the player’s request for a preliminary injunction.
Later, on October 30, 2024, the trial court dismissed the entire case, declaring its decision final. No one appealed this dismissal.
The Show-Cause Motions and Contempt Claims
In January 2025, Marbury High School, which wasn’t initially part of the lawsuit, filed a motion. They wanted to know why the AHSAA shouldn’t be held in contempt of court. The school had been fined $300 and put on probation for letting the player participate in three games, despite the TRO. Marbury High School argued the AHSAA was violating the court order.
Around the same time, the player also filed a motion. He sought to hold the AHSAA in contempt because they were penalizing him under their “student restitution” rule. This rule meant he would have to sit out three games in the next football season. The player also wanted to stop the AHSAA from enforcing this penalty.
The Trial Court’s Ruling and the Appeal
The trial court held a hearing in March 2025. In April 2025, the court issued an order. The court stated that the AHSAA’s actions were arbitrary and didn’t follow its own rules. The court permanently stopped the AHSAA from imposing the student restitution on the player and from penalizing Marbury High School.
The AHSAA appealed this decision. However, the appeals court reviewed the case and found a critical flaw.
The Appeals Court’s Decision: Lack of Jurisdiction
The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals determined that the trial court did not have the authority, or “subject-matter jurisdiction,” to make its final ruling. The court explained that once the trial court dismissed the original case in October 2024, it no longer had the power to consider new claims or add new parties. The show-cause motions from Marbury High School and the player were essentially new claims, filed months after the original case was closed.
The appeals court cited previous cases, emphasizing that a court cannot revisit a final judgment unless specific legal procedures are followed. Because the show-cause motions weren’t filed as new actions with the required fees, the trial court never properly obtained jurisdiction over them. Therefore, the trial court’s order enjoining the AHSAA from imposing sanctions was considered void.
The Outcome
The appeals court dismissed the AHSAA’s appeal because the trial court’s judgment was void. The court also granted the AHSAA’s motion to dismiss the appeal in part. This means the portion of the appeal related to the player’s suspension was dismissed because the player was now eligible to play at another school. The appeals court instructed the trial court to vacate its void judgment.
This case highlights the importance of following proper legal procedures and understanding the limitations of a court’s jurisdiction. Once a case is closed, reopening it requires specific steps to ensure the court has the authority to act.