MONTGOMERY, Ala. — The lawsuit filed by 10 Robertsdale High School football players against the Alabama High School Athletic Association will move forward after a judge in Montgomery denied a motion to dismiss the case, finding that material facts remain in dispute, according to court documents.
The ruling keeps alive the players’ challenge to the investigation that barred them and two coaches from football earlier this season, and it sets the stage for an evidentiary hearing scheduled for Thursday, Oct. 1, according to court documents.
Meanwhile, a separate lawsuit filed by Robertsdale head football coach Justin Jones has been moved from Baldwin County to Montgomery, and it is not yet clear what that change will mean for Jones’ ability to continue coaching the Golden Bears on Friday nights.
What the players claim
The players and their parents say an anonymous letter sent to the AHSAA triggered an investigation that ended with 10 students and two coaches being barred from football.
In their lawsuit, they accuse the association, Baldwin County Schools and several officials of civil rights violations, racial disparities and denying the boys due process. The players and parents also objected to demands for parents’ phone numbers and phone records during the investigation.
The players are represented by attorney Christine Hernandez, who has said she will keep fighting until all of the players are fully cleared.
“You simply cannot pause and unpause eligibility. They’ve been playing games with these children’s lives,” Hernandez said earlier this month.
What a denied motion to dismiss means
A motion to dismiss asks a court to throw out a lawsuit early, before the parties present evidence, typically on the grounds that the complaint does not state a valid legal claim or that the court lacks the authority to hear it.
By denying the motion and noting that material facts remain in dispute, the judge signaled that the case cannot be resolved on the paperwork alone. The ruling does not decide who is right. It means the players’ claims will be tested with evidence, beginning with the evidentiary hearing on Oct. 1, where both sides can present testimony and documents.
The decision is an important step for the players. Alabama courts have historically been reluctant to intervene in AHSAA eligibility and disciplinary decisions, generally treating the association as a voluntary membership organization entitled to enforce its own rules. That reluctance is not absolute, however, particularly when a party argues that the association failed to follow its own procedures or violated constitutional rights.
How the dispute began
The controversy began with an anonymous letter sent to AHSAA Executive Director Heath Harmon alleging possible football-related violations at Robertsdale High School. According to court filings in the coach’s case, the association requested information from Robertsdale principal William White on Sept. 8. White responded on Sept. 9, and on Sept. 15 the AHSAA notified him that the information was not sufficient.
That same day, Baldwin County Schools Superintendent Marty McRae sent Jones a letter telling him that he, an assistant coach and the players were not to participate in football activities. The nature of the allegations in the anonymous letter has not been publicly described.
A central complaint from both the coach and the players is that they were not told the specific allegations, interviewed or given an opportunity to respond before the suspensions took effect.
Back on the field, for now
Jones filed his own lawsuit in Baldwin County Circuit Court against the AHSAA and Harmon, McRae and White, seeking an emergency order that would allow him to coach. On Sept. 18, a judge blocked the AHSAA ruling, allowing the 10 players to take the field and Jones to coach that night against Baldwin County rival Fairhope. It was an emotional night for the players and their families, many of whom said they simply wanted to see the seniors finish their final season.
That emergency relief preserved the status quo while the legal fight continued, but it did not resolve the underlying dispute. Now, with Jones’ case transferred to Montgomery, questions remain about whether the orders allowing him to coach will stay in place and how the transfer will affect the timeline of his case.
Why the location of the case matters
The AHSAA is headquartered in Montgomery, and challenges to the association’s decisions are frequently litigated there. Moving Jones’ case from Baldwin County to Montgomery places it in the same venue as the players’ lawsuit. A change of venue can affect the timing of hearings and which judge oversees the case, and it can raise questions about how earlier orders issued by the original court will be handled going forward.
For Jones, the practical concern is immediate. Each week of the high school football season brings another game, and the uncertainty over his status could affect the team’s preparations.
A season of legal fights for the AHSAA
The Robertsdale case is one of several legal challenges the AHSAA is facing this fall from South Alabama schools. In Mobile, two mothers of Mary G. Montgomery High School students have filed a federal lawsuit challenging the association’s decision to declare their sons permanently ineligible to play football, and former MGM head coach Zach Golson has filed a separate lawsuit against the association and school officials. A federal hearing in the MGM mothers’ case has been reset for Tuesday in Montgomery.
Taken together, the cases have raised broader questions about how the AHSAA investigates alleged violations, how much notice and opportunity to respond students and coaches receive, and how quickly families can seek relief when a season is on the line.
What comes next
The evidentiary hearing in the players’ case is scheduled for Oct. 1, according to court documents. The outcome of that hearing could determine whether the players remain cleared to compete for the rest of the season while the litigation continues.
The AHSAA, Baldwin County Schools and the officials named in the lawsuits have not publicly detailed their responses beyond their court filings. The claims in the lawsuits reflect the plaintiffs’ accounts and have not been proven in court.