Angstadt v. Midd-West School District, No. 03-3912 (3rd Cir. July 29, 2004)

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has ruled that a school district’s decision to bar a "cyber school" student from interscholastic athletics for failure to satisfy state eligibility requirements did not violate the student’s or her parents’ rights to freedom of association, due process, or equal protection. Megan Angstadt had been home schooled from third grade through middle school. She desired to play interscholastic girls' basketball. However, Midd-West School District’s (PA) policy prohibits home schooled students from participating in extracurricular activities. Megan's parents obtained an exception to this policy from the school board, allowing her to play on the girls' seventh and eighth grade team during the 1999-2000 school year. She played on the team again during the 2000-2001 year. Knowing that the board was unlikely to grant Megan another exception, her parents enrolled her in the Western Pennsylvania Cyber Charter School. They notified the school district that, under the state charter school law and district policy, Megan was eligible to play on the girls' junior varsity basketball team. When the district refused to allow Megan to join the team, they sued. The district court dismissed their suit, holding that the parents failed to state a cause of action. The Third Circuit affirmed. Addressing the freedom of association claim, the court concluded that the state’s statutory requirements for participation at most only incidentally burden parents’ rights to educate their children. As for the due process claim, the court pointed out that, as a general constitutional principle, "no property interest exists in participation in extracurricular activities, including sports." Even if the state law setting forth the requirements for participation were viewed as creating a property interest for due process purposes, the court held, the law expressly conditions participation on all of its requirements, which Megan’s parents conceded she does not meet. Finally, the Fourth Circuit concluded the equal protection claim was flawed, because cyber school enrollment is not a suspect classification, such as race, and the state requirements pose no greater burden on cyber school students than on students in "physical" schools. The court found that the five interests articulated by the school district-(1) ensuring that its student athletes have the academic eligibility to play high school sports, (2) ensuring that its athletes meet its physical education requirements, (3) discouraging students from unauthorized absences during the school day, (4) encouraging students to maintain passing grades, and (5) promoting good citizenship-are a rational basis for the state eligibility requirements under the Equal Protection Clause.