Attorneys representing six Massillon Washington student-athletes are asking a Stark County judge to continue protecting the players from Ohio High School Athletic Association transfer restrictions, arguing in a new court filing that OHSAA is relying on unwritten requirements that could cost the students the remainder of their seasons.
The plaintiffs filed a reply memorandum Monday, Oct. 5, in support of their request for a preliminary injunction, the latest filing ahead of a hearing scheduled for Tuesday morning in Stark County Common Pleas Court.
The filing comes after OHSAA denied transfer exception requests for Massillon football players Brayton and Brydon Feister, making the brothers ineligible for the second half of the regular season and the postseason under the association’s transfer rules.
However, the Feisters and four other Massillon student-athletes remain protected by a temporary restraining order as the legal challenge continues.
The plaintiffs are asking the court to maintain that protection while their claims are decided, arguing that each missed contest represents an opportunity that cannot later be restored.
OHSAA acknowledges Feisters live in Massillon
The Feister brothers previously attended Archbishop Hoban High School before transferring to Massillon.
According to court filings, the Feister family purchased a Massillon home April 29 after exploring potential educational options for the brothers. OHSAA has acknowledged that the family established an actual residence in Massillon.
The dispute centers on why the family moved and whether the brothers qualify for Exception 1 of OHSAA’s transfer bylaw, which provides an exception following certain bona fide changes of residence.
OHSAA denied the Feisters’ applications Sept. 28, concluding that although the family legitimately moved, its desire to change schools preceded and ultimately led to the move.
In its response opposing an injunction, OHSAA pointed to evidence that the family had explored other schools while the brothers were still enrolled at Hoban, including communications with Big Walnut, Canton McKinley, Wadsworth and Walsh. OHSAA also cited disciplinary proceedings involving the brothers at Hoban following the 2026 state wrestling tournament.
OHSAA argued that the evidence showed “the desire to transfer compelled the move,” rather than the move compelling the transfer.
Plaintiffs challenge OHSAA’s interpretation
The Feisters’ attorneys are now directly challenging that reasoning.
In Sunday’s filing, the plaintiffs argue OHSAA has effectively created an unwritten requirement that a family must decide where to live before considering where its children will attend school.
“The written bylaw does not condition eligibility on a family moving before it looks at schools,” the plaintiffs wrote.
Their attorneys characterize OHSAA’s interpretation as an unwritten “chicken-and-egg test,” arguing that Exception 1 requires a bona fide change of residence but does not expressly require families to make decisions about housing and education in a particular chronological order.
The plaintiffs argue families commonly consider schools, academics, athletics, housing, safety, proximity to relatives and other factors simultaneously when deciding where to establish a home.
They contend that considering a school’s athletic opportunities before moving does not, by itself, establish that a move was illegitimate or that the family violated the written transfer rule.
The filing also challenges OHSAA’s contention that evidence showing the Feisters considered other schools supports its denial. The plaintiffs argue the association has evidence of a legitimate move but is relying on what they describe as unsubstantiated evidence about the family’s motivations.
Dispute over OHSAA appeals process
OHSAA has also argued that court intervention is premature because the plaintiffs have not exhausted the association’s administrative remedies.
OHSAA said the Feisters were offered an expedited appeal hearing Oct. 2 following the Sept. 28 denial but did not pursue it.
The plaintiffs counter that there was no decision for the Feisters to appeal when the lawsuit was filed Sept. 25.
Their attorneys argue OHSAA issued the Feisters’ denial only after the lawsuit was filed and after the temporary restraining order was entered. They contend a later offer of an expedited appeal cannot establish that the family failed to exhaust a remedy that did not exist when the lawsuit began.
Attorneys make a similar argument for Micah Walker, Gary Yeager and Dey’Veair Adams, whose applications remained pending at the time of the filings.
“No decision means no appeal. But the games keep counting,” the plaintiffs wrote. 2026-10-05 Plts Reply Memorandu…
The sixth student involved in the lawsuit, Da’Shun Williams, has since been approved by OHSAA for full eligibility. The plaintiffs argue the temporary restraining order protected Williams from losing games while OHSAA continued reviewing his application.
Plaintiffs argue missed games cannot be restored
Another central dispute involves whether the players would suffer irreparable harm without an injunction.
OHSAA argues that participation in interscholastic athletics is a privilege rather than a constitutional right and that missing part of a season does not establish the type of irreparable harm necessary for an injunction.
The plaintiffs argue that misses the point.
They contend a high school athletic season is finite and that once games are missed, the students cannot get those opportunities back. The filing cites OHSAA’s own published description of interscholastic athletics as potentially a “once-in-a-lifetime opportunity” that can create memories lasting forever.
The plaintiffs also submitted affidavits from retired law professor Wilson Ray Huhn and sports attorney Brian Patrick Kopp.
Huhn’s affidavit discusses the relationship between family decisions involving residence, education and extracurricular opportunities. He says families often evaluate those considerations together rather than making housing and school decisions independently.
Kopp, who said he has experience handling matters involving OHSAA and student-athlete eligibility, said eligibility reviews should be individualized and argued that athletic opportunities lost during the administrative or legal process cannot later be recreated.
Plakas: Families should be free to make decisions
Attorney Lee Plakas, a managing partner at Plakas Mannos, who represents the players and their families, said the plaintiffs are looking forward to making their arguments in court.
“We look forward to the opportunity to advocate for these student-athletes — and for families across Ohio who should be free to make decisions about where to live and educate their children based on what they believe is best for their families,” Plakas said.
Plakas said parents should not be forced to choose between making decisions they believe are best for their families and allowing their children to continue participating in sports.
“Parents should not be forced to choose between doing what they believe is best for their family and allowing their children to continue participating in the sports they love — sports that, for many young athletes, are an important part of their identity, development, friendships, and sense of belonging,” Plakas said.
“Taking that away can have consequences that extend far beyond the playing field and affect a child’s emotional and physical well-being. We look forward to challenging OHSAA’s arbitrary and unconstitutional restrictions and standing up for the rights of Ohio families and student-athletes.”
OHSAA warns of impact on other schools
OHSAA maintains that courts traditionally give substantial deference to voluntary athletic associations and argues that an injunction could affect schools beyond Massillon.
The association said allowing students to participate despite eligibility determinations could affect opponents, competitive balance and the Harbin computer rankings used to determine football playoff qualification. 11
The plaintiffs dispute that argument, saying OHSAA has not identified a concrete injury caused to another school by allowing the six students to continue participating while the court considers their claims.
The plaintiffs are not asking the court to make a final determination on every student’s eligibility at Tuesday’s hearing. Instead, they are seeking continued preliminary protection from enforcement of the disputed transfer restrictions while the underlying lawsuit proceeds.
“The students should not have to lose their season to learn whether OHSAA could lawfully keep them from playing,” the plaintiffs wrote in the conclusion of Sunday’s filing.
The preliminary injunction hearing is scheduled for 8:30 a.m. Tuesday, Oct. 6, in Stark County Common Pleas Court.
