
Illinois Right to Play Act would allow on student-athletes to play on more than one team
Student-athletes juggle a lot between homework, practice, games, and other responsibilities.
So who should decide how student-athletes spend their free time? That question is getting a lot of play thanks to a bill pending in the Illinois General Assembly in Springfield.
Xamiya Walton used to shoot hoops at Butler College Prep, at 821 E. 103rd St. in Chicago's Pullman neighborhood, where she estimated she spent hundreds of hours on the court. She also used to play basketball outside of school for a club team.
Walton was not allowed to compete for both teams at the same time — or else she would have been suspended from the high school team.
"I think that would be devastating for me as an individual," Walton said. "I would hate to put my teammates in that position."
Illinois state Rep. Janet Yang Rohr (D-Naperville) is sympathetic. She has heard from everyone from upset dance moms to frustrated soccer dads.
"A lot of my constituents, they were getting caught up in that rule," Yang Rohr said.
Yang Rohr's
Right to Play Act (House Bill 3037)
would allow kids to compete for whomever they want, whenever they want. It would toss out the old policy, and its penalties that come from the Illinois High School Association — or IHSA.
"They're making these decisions that say whether a student can do this or that in their free time," Yang Rohr said. "Like it doesn't make a lot of sense."
Currently, a teen basketball player can't be on two courts at once — but an actor can be in the high school musical and community theatre with no problem. Supporters of the rule, as is, say the difference comes down to risk of injury.
"Stress fractures, in particular, is an overuse injury," said Teri Rodgers, who spent 27 years as head girls' basketball coach for New Trier Township High School in the north suburbs.
Rodgers worries changing the current policy will affect teen stress and anxiety levels.
"Yes, it would give kids control," she said. "At the same time, you know, they are also answering to two different coaches, and I think that would be really, really difficult for the majority of kids."
The IHSA also warned about coach retention issues in a recent letter to schools opposing the Right to Play Act.
Yang Rohr noted that the push for the changes the act would bring about are far from new.
"In 1985, they tried to pass this exact same bill," she said.
As the decades-old debate rages on, Walton is thinking of younger players — who she hopes will get more freedom than they had.
"Not being able to participate in those events in the long run can definitely hurt an athlete," she said.
For Walton's own part, she turned out all right. She now plays Division I basketball for Northwestern University.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
From the Farm: Estate tax failure
CENTRAL ILLINOIS (WCIA) — The Illinois General Assembly has recessed for the spring term after passing a budget, but the big issue that agriculture wanted was not included. The Family Farm Preservation Act was designed to overhaul the estate tax on farms, which frequently requires substantial amounts of land to be sold to pay the tax. However, it was not called for a senate vote because of the concern it would reduce state tax revenue when the state needs money. From the Farm: Illinois Corn Grower testifies on new Farm Bill Rep. Charlie Meier, a farmer from Oakville and the top Republican in the House Ag Committee, opposes the whole concept of the estate tax. It's doubtful that Meier will get his wish though. Other lawmakers supportive of the Family Farm Preservation Act plan to push it during the fall veto session. It is a perennial issue for agriculture and will be until the cows come home. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
SEC wins dismissal of lawsuit challenging tighter rules on shareholder proposals
By Jonathan Stempel (Reuters) -A federal judge on Thursday dismissed a lawsuit challenging U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission rule changes that made it harder for shareholders to file proposals at companies' annual meetings, including for reforms on environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues. U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton in Washington, D.C. rejected arguments that the SEC arbitrarily and capriciously adopted the changes, including on the alleged pretext it supported corporate opposition to reforms on contentious issues such as climate change and workplace diversity. The SEC was required to determine whether the changes would "promote efficiency, competition, and capital formation, and it did so," Walton wrote in a 64-page decision. Adopted in November 2020, late in Republican President Donald Trump's first White House term, the SEC rule changes increased how much stock shareholders had to own, and how long they had to own it, before submitting proposals. The changes also added requirements for resubmitting proposals that shareholders had rejected in the last three years. Plaintiffs in the June 2021 lawsuit included the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, which represents more than 300 faith-based institutional investors, shareholder advocacy group As You Sow and shareholder advocate James McRitchie. They said the SEC, before adopting the rule changes, failed to quantify the benefits of ESG and other shareholder proposals, or address the expected loss of "billions of dollars in long-term shareholder value" by adding restrictions. In a joint statement following Walton's decision, the plaintiffs said the changes "only serve to hurt shareholders and companies alike. Despite this decision, shareholders will continue to engage with corporations on their environmental and social impacts." The SEC declined to comment. In seeking the lawsuit's dismissal, the SEC said the rule changes would help ensure that proposals reflect the interests of all shareholders, and that resubmitted proposals could receive levels of support "likely to lead to company action." SEC commissioners voted 3-2 along party lines for the changes, with Republican appointees in the majority. The regulator defended the changes during Democratic President Joe Biden's administration. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce supported the SEC's position. The case is Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility et al v SEC, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia, No. 21-01620.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
SEC wins dismissal of lawsuit challenging tighter rules on shareholder proposals
By Jonathan Stempel (Reuters) -A federal judge on Thursday dismissed a lawsuit challenging U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission rule changes that made it harder for shareholders to file proposals at companies' annual meetings, including for reforms on environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues. U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton in Washington, D.C. rejected arguments that the SEC arbitrarily and capriciously adopted the changes, including on the alleged pretext it supported corporate opposition to reforms on contentious issues such as climate change and workplace diversity. The SEC was required to determine whether the changes would "promote efficiency, competition, and capital formation, and it did so," Walton wrote in a 64-page decision. Adopted in November 2020, late in Republican President Donald Trump's first White House term, the SEC rule changes increased how much stock shareholders had to own, and how long they had to own it, before submitting proposals. The changes also added requirements for resubmitting proposals that shareholders had rejected in the last three years. Plaintiffs in the June 2021 lawsuit included the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, which represents more than 300 faith-based institutional investors, shareholder advocacy group As You Sow and shareholder advocate James McRitchie. They said the SEC, before adopting the rule changes, failed to quantify the benefits of ESG and other shareholder proposals, or address the expected loss of "billions of dollars in long-term shareholder value" by adding restrictions. In a joint statement following Walton's decision, the plaintiffs said the changes "only serve to hurt shareholders and companies alike. Despite this decision, shareholders will continue to engage with corporations on their environmental and social impacts." The SEC declined to comment. In seeking the lawsuit's dismissal, the SEC said the rule changes would help ensure that proposals reflect the interests of all shareholders, and that resubmitted proposals could receive levels of support "likely to lead to company action." SEC commissioners voted 3-2 along party lines for the changes, with Republican appointees in the majority. The regulator defended the changes during Democratic President Joe Biden's administration. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce supported the SEC's position. The case is Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility et al v SEC, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia, No. 21-01620. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data