(Of course, there is always the risk that the super-prospect might actually choose Duke.)

You asked, “The employees of an institution can, at least sometimes, be required to honor restrictive agreements the institution has made. Can the students of an institution be required to honor its external commitments??”

That depends on what the admission & enrollment contracts of the schools involved say, and public ones cannot require waiver of federal civil rights as a condition of enrollment. Private ones can, which is why religious-affiliated colleges exist – it’s why they can show preference for students of their faith/denomination, or even restrict enrollment to their own faith.

I doubt, though, that any private school requires that students waive their federal free speech rights concerning the NCAA.

And with the commie B.O as TOTUS. .. Ehh.

The NC State case is more troublesome. Can they discipline or expel their student if he fails to desist? I doubt that they legally can, but the issue is murky. The employees of an institution can, at least sometimes, be required to honor restrictive agreements the institution has made. Can the students of an institution be required to honor its external commitments?

Actually there could be a RICO suit (18 United States Code 1861, et. seq.), with the predicate act being extortion under 18 U.S.C. 1951. College students have contracts with their schools which consitute property interests, and are therefore property which can be extorted. It would be more of stretch to argue that the students are being injured in their trade or business, but civil RICO is liberally construed in that regard.

Plus the schools in question, not merely the NCAA, would be civilly liable for violating their students’ federal civil rights – 42 U.S.C. 1983, et seq. Private organizations and persons can be sued for some federal civil rights violations, thouogh it might be a stretch to seek relief concerning non-minorities/women for suppression of free speech.

The NCAA could be sued even for attempts, though the objective of such a suit would be injunctive relief, and that is available only under 42 U.S.C. 1983, not 18 U.S.C. 1961 where only the Department of Justice can seek RICO injunctive relief.

A federal civil rights class action seeking injunctive relief would probably be the best way to go after the NCAA for this sort of tin-pot tyranny.

Though we can dream about simply lifting the NCAA’s anti-trust immunity.

The NCAA is not the one enforcing its rules against the student here. N.C. State is doing the enforcing. To use an analogy to illustrate the situation, your scheme suggests that if N.C. State joined a hypothetical “American Anti-Socialist Alliance,” and the alliance’s rules required that N.C. State not admit socialists (which, like silencing protected speech, would be unconstitutional), N.C. State could either 1. quit and/or sue the alliance or 2. go ahead and reject socialists because “the alliance can enforce its rules.”

Obviously, as a government agency, N.C. State is free to do neither. Government agencies cannot do unconstitutional things just because private organizations are pressuring them to do so. That would grant private organizations the coercive power of the state to enforce their preferences, and that is a very unwise idea.

A private organization sets its own rules so if you don’t like them quit the organization. You don’t have any constitutiional rights at your local country club.

Robert:

NC State is a member of a private association call the National Collegiate Athletic Association. They are bound by its rules. If they don’t like that then they can quit or they can challenge them in a civil action like Florida State did over using Seminole imagery. In the meantime the NCAA can enforce its rules.