Arkansas Supreme Court Rules School Districts Cannot Discriminate Against Transfer Students

NEWS. April 17, 2025, from Little Rock.

After months of rank infighting that resulted in a dearth of business output, the Arkansas Supreme Court got on the same page and cranked out an important opinion today.  In Standridge v. Fort Smith Public Schools, the court issued an opinion that will reverberate around the state for transfer students. 

Fort Smith operates three schools in its district.  Fort Smith Northside, Fort Smith Southside, and a virtual academy. The Standridge kid attended the virtual academy.  He was doing his extracurricular activities at Fort Smith Northside.  However, for some reason that probably involved sports, he decided to transfer his extracurriculars to Fort Smith Southside.

The Fort Smith school district has a rule about those kinds of transfers. According to the rules, if a student transfers from outside the district (an “interdistrict transfer”), the student is immediately eligible to play sports.  However, if the student transfers from a school within the district (an “intradistrict transfer”), the student must ride the pine on the bleachers for one year.

Enter Mr. and Mrs. Standridge. The parents Standridge do not like the fact that their kid is benched because he was an intradistrict transfer. They felt like the school district was infringing on their rights as parents to choose a school for their child.  They also felt like the school district had an erroneous interpretation of the law.

It just so happens that Mrs. Standridge is a pretty good lawyer. She, on behalf of Mr. Standridge, sues the school district. And Mrs. Standridge’s arguments were persuasive.

The Arkansas Supreme Court, with Justice Bronni flexing his entertaining, fun, gregarious, and easy-to-read writing style for the majority, ruled that Arkansas Code § 6-18-1904(f) prohibits the type of discrimination against students employed by the school district. It reversed and remanded the circuit court’s findings that permit the school district to force young Standridge to be benched for a year. Now, all transfer students will be immediately eligible to play sports at their new school.

You can read the opinion here.

ANALYSIS.

All is fair in love, war, and football (or insert any other competitive high school sport).  There is a disdain, one we saw voiced by the legislature this past session, against recruiting high school players. 

Let’s take the Benton and Bryant school districts.  Both have good football teams, but Bryant has a history of state championships.  If little Johnny attends Benton, but can sling the pigskin like Payton Manning, that might be something that really interests Bryant.  The coach at Bryant can approach Johnny and his parents about playing at Bryant instead of Benton.

How is this accomplished.  Easy, we just simply school choice Johnny over to Bryant.  Why is this good for Johnny? Well, he is more recruitable to a power five conference, which automatically increases his chances of getting drafted to the NFL, if he is quarterbacking for a state championship team.  And Bryant, well, they like those championship titles and their winning culture.               

What is the effect here? Well, Senator Alan Clark’s SB438 did not make it out of committee, but it was designed to “permanently ban from coaching” a person who recruits a student.  With the death of that bill, and the fuel thrown on the fire by the Standridge court, we are one step closer to paying high school students to play football. 

I, personally (along with Saint Nick Saban), do not like the effect of Name, Image, and Likeness money on college sports.  But, into the looking glass we go.

Clinton W. Lancaster

Attorney. America First. Sued Hunter Biden for child support. Represented President Trump in the 2020 Wisconsin election challenge. Former attorney for the Wisconsin Special Counsel. An official “Tough Cookie” per President Trump.