IHSA Announcements

November 18, 2002

BLOOMINGTON - Eleventh Judicial Circuit Judge Elizabeth A. Robb Monday (Nov. 18) granted Summary Judgment on behalf of the Illinois High School Association (IHSA) in its case with Pontiac High School student Isaac Monts.

Monts is senior at Pontiac. He was ruled ineligible to play all sports at Pontiac after his transfer from Streator (Woodland) on Sept. 9. IHSA By-law 6.010 requires Monts be ineligible because IHSA Executive Director Martin L. Hickman found Pontiac's head football coach to have exerted undue influence in the transfer of Monts to Pontiac. The Monts family sought a temporary injunction before Judge Robb Sept. 24. She denied the request. On Oct. 1, the 4th District Appellate Court upheld Judge Robb's denial of the temporary restraining order, and remanded the case to the Circuit Court.

IHSA had filed for Summary Judgment in the case on Oct. 18. The parents of Isaac Monts on his behalf filed for Summary Judgment against IHSA on Nov. 6, 2002.

In issuing the Summary Judgment on behalf of IHSA, the Court concluded:

1) The Illinois High School Association is a voluntary private association comprised of member schools and a court may not substitute its interpretation on the association's rules, or its view of what is fair and reasonable as a substitute for the decision of the Executive Director of the IHSA.

2) There is no evidence of fraud or collusion on the part of IHSA.

3) The IHSA definition of undue influence is neither vague nor ambiguous. In fact, the definition is clear and broad and not subject to question nor misinterpretation. There is to be no influence exerted by school personnel upon a prospective student or his family related to athletic participation.

4) The severe punishment for a violation of 6.010 is unequivocal - a student is deemed permanently ineligible to play sports at that school. The imposition of this penalty on Isaac Monts was not arbitrary or capricious on the part of the IHSA. The association was merely adhering to its rules.

5) Monts asserted that he had a substantive right, a property interest, to participate in sports at Pontiac High School. The Court reiterated that it does not recognize that a student has a protected interest to participate in extracurricular activities. Involvement in extracurricular activities is a privilege, not a right. Monts has no right to play sports.

6) Monts contended that his right to procedural due process was violated by the IHSA. He is not entitled to judicial standards of due process because the IHSA is a private, voluntary association. Monts was afforded his right to a fair hearing. IHSA has not violated any substantive or procedural rights of the young man.

7) The rules of the IHSA have been established to address legitimate concerns of all of its member schools, not the individual student athletes who are governed by those rules.