Rebecca W. Thomas,
Communications Coordinator
Prattville, Alabama – The Autauga County Board of Education, through its Superintendent Lyman Woodfin, filed a Motion to Show Cause with the court Monday regarding a recent decision by the Alabama High School Athletic Association (AHSAA) concerning Marbury High School and a student-athlete’s eligibility. The motion seeks clarity on a critical legal issue that impacts school systems across Alabama: whether schools must follow the rulings of a court of law or whether the AHSAA is immune from these court orders.
The case began in September 2024, when a student-athlete was ruled ineligible by the AHSAA according to the 2024-25 AHSAA Handbook, Rule I. Eligibility. Section 12. Transfer Rule, regarding bona fide moves. The school district fully supported this ruling and did not allow the student-athlete to participate in any varsity contests, notifying the family of the student’s ineligibility. “We did not allow the child to play per AHSAA rules before the temporary restraining order was in place,” commented Lyman Woodfin, Superintendent of Autauga County Schools.
The student athlete’s father, a Montgomery-based attorney, filed and was granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) by the Honorable J.R. Gaines, Circuit Judge, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, which granted eligibility to the student-athlete. The TRO prohibited the AHSAA from imposing penalties on the school, student, or athletic program for allowing the student to compete while it was in effect.
Jimmy Lansdell, principal of Marbury High School, and Superintendent Woodfin attempted to meet with Heath Harmon, executive director of the Alabama High School Athletic Association, to clarify the situation. Mr. Harmon denied these requests in keeping with his legal counsel’s advice while the matter was in court. “After reviewing the TRO and reading the AHSAA policy on TROs listed on page 68 in their handbook, I was very concerned with how they could possibly rule after the TRO was lifted,” said Woodfin. “I was seeking guidance specifically related to the AHSAA’s TRO policy. After Mr. Harmon indicated that he could not meet with me, I deferred to the advice of our board attorney, which was to follow the judge’s order.”
While the TRO was active, the student-athlete competed in three varsity games. When the court later dismissed the TRO, the school fully complied by prohibiting the student-athlete from further participation in varsity competitions. “When the TRO was removed, we immediately held the child out because the jurisdiction fell back to the AHSAA ruling,” confirmed Woodfin.
In December 2024, the AHSAA issued penalties for the student-athlete’s participation in the three games during the TRO period, citing violation of the 2024-25 AHSAA Handbook, Rule III. Contests. Section 8. Ineligible Student Participation. Penalties include a suspension of three games for the student-athlete, a $300 fine, and placing the school’s athletic programs on probation for one year. In a letter that the AHSAA sent to the school requesting information about the student-athlete, the AHSAA stated, in part: “The TRO was granted allowing the student to participate in varsity athletics at MHS effective immediately.”
After the TRO was lifted, the AHSAA ruled the student ineligible and levied penalties in keeping with the organization’s policies. “This letter indicates that the AHSAA did recognize the TRO; however, once it was removed, they imposed penalties in accordance with their policy,” commented Woodfin. The Motion to Show Cause filed by the Autauga County Board of Education aims to seek legal clarification on a question that affects all public school systems in Alabama: Should schools adhere to the decisions of judges, or are they required to comply solely with the policies of the AHSAA?
Superintendent Woodfin stated that “this position is a terrible spot for a school district to be in.” He is seeking guidance from the legal system to advise all schools in Alabama which entity they should uphold in situations like this moving forward.
“I understand the AHSAA’s dilemma,” said Woodfin. “They feel like an outside entity can’t decide eligibility, but I also understand that in all areas of education, we must adhere to judicial rulings. As a school system, we adhere to court orders for various issues, so do we not follow them regarding athletics? If we don’t follow a judge’s order regarding athletics, my system could be sued by the plaintiffs. If we do follow the judge’s order, the AHSAA punishes the school and the player. What do we do?” With the implementation of the CHOOSE Act, this is a critical issue that will continue to present itself until it is resolved once and for all.
The goal is not to challenge the AHSAA’s authority but to resolve a significant issue that leaves school systems in an untenable position. Clear guidance ensures that future actions are legal and in the best interests of students. The filing of this motion reflects the district’s commitment to ensuring that school systems have a clear, consistent understanding of their obligations when judicial orders and the athletic association rules are in conflict.
A hearing was set by the Honorable J.R. Gaines, Circuit Judge, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, for February 26, 2025, at 1:30 p.m., at the Phelps-Price Justice Center, Courtroom 4B.
About Autauga County Schools
Autauga County Schools (ACS) is a 15-campus public school system in Autauga County, Alabama, dedicated to fostering the whole student in an academically rigorous environment where everyone is known and valued by creating pathways designed for success. Learn more at acboe.net.
