The Oklahoma Secondary School Activities Association (OSSAA), which regulates state sporting events and academic competitions in the K-12 system, has come under fire for alleged efforts to deter students from using Oklahoma’s open-transfer law by declaring those students ineligible to participate in sports at their new school.

Oklahoma is not the only state where the entity regulating school sports has been accused of trying to stymie families’ use of school-choice programs.

A similar scenario is underway in Alabama.

In 2024, Alabama policymakers enacted the Creating Hope and Opportunity for Our Students’ Education (CHOOSE) Act, which provides families with up to $7,000 per qualifying child per year to pay for education expenses outside the public-school system, including private-school tuition. The program’s initial phase was restricted based on income, but it will expand to include all families in 2026.

However, the Alabama High School Athletic Association (AHSAA), which is comparable to the OSSAA, recently issued a ruling declaring that students who use the CHOOSE Act to attend a private school cannot participate in sports for one year.

Officials with the AHSAA declared CHOOSE Act funds to be a form of financial aid comparable to scholarships or tuition reductions. The AHSAA handbook declares, “A student that transfers to a member school and receives any financial aid or financial assistance shall remain ineligible at that school for one year.”

However, the CHOOSE Act includes language explicitly stating, “Nothing in this chapter shall affect or change the athletic eligibility of student athletes governed by the Alabama High School Athletic Association or similar association.”

Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey and Alabama House Speaker Nathaniel Ledbetter sued, seeking an injunction against the AHSAA.

“We wrote and passed the CHOOSE Act to give every child a true choice in their education, and that very much includes participation in athletics,” Ivey said when announcing the lawsuit.

“The AHSAA issued this ruling without consulting a single policymaker or even attempting to gain clarity on the intended interpretation of lines 162–165 in Act 2024-21, which clearly state the CHOOSE Act will not impact the eligibility of student-athletes,” Ledbetter said. “For the AHSAA’s leadership to take such drastic action just as football season begins tells me they are not concerned with the best interests of all student-athletes.”

Ivey and Ledbetter’s complaint stated, “In enacting the CHOOSE Act, Governor Ivey and the Legislature specifically mandated that ‘nothing’ in that Act shall ‘affect or change the athletic eligibility of student athletes” governed by the AHSAA. … Yet the AHSAA’s rules specifically and unlawfully sideline CHOOSE Act students from AHSAA-sanctioned interscholastic athletic events for an entire year solely because they receive CHOOSE Act funds. The AHSAA’s rules are thus unlawful.”

When the lawsuit was announced, Ledbetter predicted Alabama legislators may amend state law to address problems with the AHSAA, and at least one other prominent Alabama official has expressed a similar viewpoint.

In a social-media post, Alabama Lt. Gov. Will Ainsworth wrote, “The same Alabama High School Athletic Association responsible for making sure teams do not break the rules is BREAKING THE LAW by denying eligibility to CHOOSE Act students. I’ll offer legislation to strip AHSAA of its power and give it to an entity that will follow the law.”

An Alabama county circuit court judge quickly granted Ivey and Ledbetter’s motion for a temporary restraining order against the AHSAA, stating that the plaintiffs had “demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits” and “irreparable harm” in the absence of a restraining order.

Ivey called the order “a victory for common sense.”

“Every child deserves true choice in their education, and that includes their right to participate in school athletics,” Ivey said.

“The bottom line is that no person or entity’s opinion is greater than the rule of law,” Ledbetter said. “Every student deserves to have the opportunity to participate in athletics, and with this action, affected students can get off the sidelines and back into the game while we continue fighting to ensure a level playing field.”

A similar debate is underway in Oklahoma, where the Oklahoma Secondary School Activities Association has been accused of wrongly denying the eligibility of students who use the state’s open-transfer law to shift to another public-school district in Oklahoma.

In the latest case, four teenage boys sought to transfer to Glencoe High School. The OSSAA barred the four boys from playing basketball.

The boys’ families filed a lawsuit in the District Court of Payne County on Aug. 14, asking for immediate injunctive relief to reinstate the players’ eligibility and prevent further harm to their athletic and educational opportunities.

The plaintiffs’ petition alleged that OSSAA’s purported reasons for denying the four boys’ eligibility have shifted repeatedly over the course of the review process and that OSSAA’s refusal to “exercise its discretionary authority and allow the Minors' eligibility constitutes action which is collusive, unreasonable, arbitrary and/or capricious.”

The court granted a temporary restraining order on Sept. 5, meaning the four boys will be allowed to play sports at Glencoe while the case proceeds.

An OSSAA spokesman previously said the group does not comment on ongoing litigation.

In 2007, the 10th Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals agreed with a lower-court ruling that found the OSSAA is “a state actor” because of the “persuasive entwinement of public institutions and public officials in its composition and workings.” The court noted that OSSAA’s directors were all public-school employees and that the state of Oklahoma authorized OSSAA to determine athletic eligibility and hold play-off games.

The Glencoe situation has prompted two lawmakers—state Rep. Chris Kannady, R-Oklahoma City, and state Sen. Avery Frix, R-Muskogee—to publicly suggest OSSAA could face increased state oversight in the future, and Gov. Kevin Stitt appears ready to support reform, having publicly criticized the OSSAA’s actions.