Appeals court considers whether MIAA scheduling sanctions were arbitrary and whether claims are moot

Boston — The Appeals Court heard argument in a consolidated challenge to enforcement actions by the Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association, where public schools sought temporary relief after the MIAA assessed forfeiture penalties over scheduling submissions.

Kaye Hodge, representing the MIAA, told the panel the disputes are not moot because the handbook provision could produce contractual attorney‑fee exposure, and she defended the association’s discretion to enforce membership rules. Hodge emphasized membership governance and said the sanction (forfeiture of a contest result) was an agreed consequence of failing to list in‑season contests appropriately.

Plaintiffs’ counsel Elizabeth Zuckerman urged the court to find the sanction arbitrary and capricious: the contested policy was unwritten and applied in a manner that penalized student athletes rather than the adults who submit schedules. Zuckerman also argued the penalty was unevenly applied because its effect depends on which opponent a team draws in tournament seeding.

The panel questioned whether the contractual‑fee argument makes the case non‑moot, whether the forfeiture penalty is reasonably related to the offense, and what, if anything, would remain to litigate in the superior court after an appellate ruling. The court reserved decision.