New Jersey Superior Court Decision – Protecting Student-Athlete’s Due Process Rights

On February 28, 2025, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Mercer County, decided the case of Anthony Knox, Jr. v. New Jersey State Interscholastic Athletic Association (NJSIAA). The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, temporarily enjoining NJSIAA from disqualifying Anthony Knox, Jr. from participating in the 2025 NJSIAA Wrestling Tournament due to alleged violations of sportsmanship rules. The decision centered on New Jersey student-athlete’s due process rights, with the court determining that NJSIAA’s actions lacked fundamental fairness and failed to provide proper notice or an opportunity to be heard.

Background and Procedural History of the New Jersey Student-Athlete Due Process Case

The case arose after Anthony Knox, Jr. (Knox), a senior wrestler at St. John Vianney High School, was disqualified from further competition in the 2025 NJSIAA Wrestling Tournament. The disqualification stemmed from an altercation that took place during the District 25 Wrestling Tournament at Collingswood High School on February 22, 2025. Following Knox’s match, a fight erupted between unruly parents and spectators. Anthony Knox, Sr. (Knox’s father), who had been seated in the bleachers watching the match with his son, became embroiled in the dispute. Knox purportedly followed his father to the other side of the bleachers intending to defend his father and mother from being verbally accosted. Both Knox and his father were subsequently taken into police custody. Following the tournament, the NJSIAA Executive Director conducted an investigation and issued a disqualification notice, stating that Knox violated the “bench area” rule, which probits any player from leaving the bench during an altercation, and engaged in unsportsmanlike conduct.

Knox, through legal counsel, challenged the disqualification, arguing that Knox’s due process rights were violated. Counsel alleged that Knox was not given prior notice of the investigation, was denied access to the evidence used against him, and was not allowed to present a defense. As a result, Knox filed an order to show cause seeking temporary and permanent relief from the disqualification.

Legal Issues and Court’s Analysis on Student-Athlete Due Process in New Jersey

Due Process Violations in New Jersey High School Athletics

Knox’s primary argument was that NJSIAA’s investigation and subsequent disqualification violated his procedural due process rights under the United States and New Jersey Constitutions. The court examined whether Knox had a legitimate property or liberty interest in participating in high school athletics and whether the procedures used to deprive him of that interest were constitutionally sufficient.

The court determined that although Knox did not have a Constitutional right to participate in high school sports, the disqualification notice defied general notions of public policy and fundamental fairness. Further, NJSIAA—operating as a state actor—must adhere to procedural due process principles. The court found that Knox was never given proper notice of the investigation or a meaningful opportunity to respond to the allegations, which amounted to a deprivation of due process.

Arbitrary and Capricious Enforcement of NJSIAA Rules

The court also scrutinized the fairness of NJSIAA’s decision-making process. It noted that while multiple individuals were involved in the altercation, Knox appeared to be the only student-athlete singled out for disqualification. The court expressed concern that NJSIAA’s interpretation of its authority allowed for selective enforcement of penalties, which raised further due process concerns.

Furthermore, the court questioned the legitimacy of NJSIAA’s reliance on a proposed rule that had not been formally adopted according to its own procedures. The court emphasized that an organization cannot unilaterally create and enforce rules without adhering to its established governance structure.

Balance of Hardships and Injunctive Relief in Student-Athlete Due Process Cases

In reaching its determination the court applied the factors set forth in Crowe v. DeGioia, 90 N.J. 126 (1982), and found that Knox had shown: (1) preliminary injunctive relief was necessary to prevent irreparable harm; (2) the existence of a settled legal right; (3) a showing of a reasonable probability of ultimate success on the merits; and (4) the relative hardship to the parties favored the granting of relief. Under factor four, the court weighed the potential harm to both parties. It concluded that Knox would suffer irreparable harm if barred from competition, as his high school wrestling career would effectively end, potentially impacting his future opportunities. Conversely, the court found that granting the injunction would not significantly harm NJSIAA, as it could still enforce its rules fairly and consistently.

Key Takeaways from the New Jersey Student-Athlete Due Process Case

The court granted Knox’s request for a preliminary injunction, allowing him to compete in the upcoming tournament while the litigation proceeded. The ruling underscored the importance of New Jersey student-athlete’s due process rights in high school athletics and reinforced that governing bodies like NJSIAA must follow transparent and fair procedures when imposing disciplinary actions.

Key takeaways from this case include:

  • Student-athletes are entitled to due process protections when subject to disciplinary actions by state-affiliated organizations.
  • NJSIAA’s enforcement of rules must adhere to principles of fundamental fairness, including proper notice and an opportunity to respond.
  • Selective enforcement and lack of transparency can render a disciplinary action arbitrary and capricious, leading to judicial intervention.
  • The balance of hardships favors athletes in cases where disqualification could cause irreparable harm, particularly when due process violations are at issue.

This decision serves as a precedent for future disputes involving high school athletic associations and highlights the courts’ role in ensuring fair treatment of student athletes.

Criminal law is complicated and constantly changing. If you are facing criminal charges, you should immediately contact our team of experienced former prosecutors to schedule a free case review with one of our expert criminal defense attorneys. A complete understanding of criminal law by your attorney is crucial to your defense. Your rights and freedoms are in jeopardy, and you owe it to yourself to act. We are available to provide immediate assistance and further counsel on your case at 862-315-7929.

No aspect of this attorney advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.