Breighner v. Michigan High School Athletic Assoc.
This Ballotpedia article needs to be updated.
This Ballotpedia article is currently under review by Ballotpedia staff as it may contain out-of-date information. Please email us if you would like to suggest an update.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Sunshine Laws |
| How to Make Records Requests |
| Sunshine Litigation |
| Sorted by State, Year and Topic |
| Sunshine Nuances |
| Deliberative Process Exemption |
Breighner v. Michigan High School Athletic Assoc. was a case before the Michigan Supreme Court in 2004 concerning private bodies which are publicly funded.
Important precedents
This case established a number of important precedents:
- That the inclusion of the word "agency" within the definition of public body in the Michigan Freedom of Information Act was not meant to be construed so as to include all agents of the state but was meant to be construed narrowly so as to include only government offices and departments.
- That the Michigan Freedom of Information Act requires that funding be direct and not in exchange for goods or services in order for a private corporation or entity to be considered a public body thereby affirming the decision made in State Defender Union Employees v Legal Aid & Defender Association of Detroit.[1]
Background
- The Michigan High School Athletic Association (MHSAA) was founded in 1924 as a subdivision of the office of the state Superintendent of Public Education. In 1972 the MHSAA became a private nonprofit corporation but retained its status as the official high school athletics association of the state. In 1995, this status was removed by the state legislature, and the option to join or not join the MHSAA was left to the individual school districts.
- A majority of Michigan high schools are members of the MHSAA. However, the MHSAA collects no dues from the schools. The majority of the income for the MHSAA, 90%, comes from the sale of tickets to post season athletic tournaments.
- The Breighner's are the parents of a high school student who was not allowed to participate in a MHSAA sponsored ski event due to his participation in a previous unsanctioned event. They filed a request, seeking all information related to the decision to not permit their son to participate.
- The MHSAA denied the request claiming that they were not a public body under the definition found in the Michigan Freedom of Information Act.
- The trial court ruled in favor of the Breighner's, ordering the release of the documents. The Michigan Court of Appeals overturned this decision.
- The decision of the Court of Appeals was appealed to the Supreme Court.[1]
Ruling of the court
The trial court held that the MHSAA was a public body subject to the Michigan Freedom of Information Act under statute 232 (d)(4) because it received a majority of its funding through the state. The court argued that the MHSAA, by receiving funding from the school's collections of tickets, is in fact enjoying the money making ability of the schools.[1]
The Michigan Court of Appeals overturned the decision of the trial court, finding that the public records law did not apply to the MHSAA. The court felt that, first and foremost, the MHSAA could no longer be considered as being founded by the state because the modern version was completely separate from state control. The court also rejected the trial courts finding that the MHSAA received public funding because the MHSAA hosted the activities with its own staff and even payed rental fees for facilities. The court also felt that the fact that the state's high schools were not required to join the MHSAA resulted in an economic and contractual decision on the part of the high schools and not a mandatory relationship which requires high schools to generate funds for the MHSAA. Finally, the court held that the MHSAA was not an agency of the state because the state had no control over the workings of the MHSAA.[1]
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, ruling in favor of the MHSAA.
The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals and determined that the MHSAA was not directly or indirectly funded by the state but was instead funded by the voluntary sale of tickets to MHSAA sponsored events. The court went on to determine that the MHSAA did not enjoy the moneymaking capacity of the schools because the MHSAA was responsible for the planning and organization of all events and the training of staff, without which neither the MHSAA nor any of the member schools would collect funds. Finally citing State Defender Union Employees v Legal Aid & Defender Association of Detroit, the court determined that, even if the money paid to the MHSAA was considered funding from state schools, the voluntary relationship between the schools and the MHSAA constituted a contractual relationship which involved payment for services rendered. Finally, the court rejected the Breighner's contention than the MHSAA is an agency of the state because it acts as an agent to the state. The court felt that this definition of agency was not in line with the exemption found in statute 232(d)(iii), which clearly intended the definition of agency to include only a unit or division of government and not any entity that acted on behalf of the government. Had the government intended the definition that the Breighner's advocate, they would have used the term agent instead of agency. Based on all of these factors, the court determined that the MHSAA was not a public agency and was not subject to the Michigan Freedom of Information Act.[1]
Associated cases
See also
External links
- Ruling of the Court from findlaw.com (free registration required)
Footnotes
