At times, it can be difficult to truly comprehend the sheer magnitude of briefs, motions, and trials handled by the U.S. legal system. Forever in flux, the law evolves to meet the ever-changing needs and mores of the people. Decisions made in courtrooms by judges and juries have affected countless lives and shaped the nation's direction. Civil rights have been created and shared, protections amended and applied, the innocent exonerated, and the wicked punished.
Oh, and it’s also where a mother can file to prevent a school district from forcing her daughter to share the captaincy of a cheer squad. Not exactly Marbury v. Madison, but the courts are here for matters both big and small.
Alas, Laura Varela is not likely to be joining her daughter in waving pom-poms and doing cartwheels for La Joya Independent School District (specifically Palmview High School) after the Texas Thirteenth District Court of Appeals in Corpus Christi - Edinburg both reversed a trial court’s decision not to recind a temporary restraining order (TRO) and dismissed Varela’s case for lack of jurisdiction on February 12, 2026.
Varela had claimed the La Joya Independent School District (La Joya ISD) had violated the district’s “Cheer Constitution” by allowing a second day of tryouts for cheerleading, which culminated in her daughter being forced to be a co-captain instead of carrying the captain’s mantle on her own. She convinced a trial court to grant her a TRO based on an alleged breach of contract, but her argument failed to inspire the appellate court. Regardless, it provides an interesting reminder about what’s required for a contract to be legal.
Be! Aggressive! Bee-Eee Aggressive!
While high school cheerleading squads still provide support and generate enthusiasm for their school’s teams, many also compete in organized competitions to showcase their own athletic prowess and skills. Texas stands at the forefront of this growing activity, with district teams made up of high school students competing in national championships and dozens of “cheer schools” dotting the state.
La Joya High, a public school in the southern part of Hidalgo County, held cheerleader tryouts in the spring of last year. According to Varela's filing, her daughter was named captain of the squad after tryouts concluded. However, that was not the end of tryouts, as another session was held. When this was finished, another cheerleader was also named captain, meaning they would serve as a co-captain alongside Varela’s daughter.
Sharing may be caring, but not as far as Varela was concerned. Citing the school’s “Cheer Constitution,” she filed suit against the La Joya ISD on June 5, 2025, for breach of contract. According to her claim, district officials had violated her daughter’s “cheer constitutional rights” by permitting an additional tryout session, denying her to be named as the only captain. She argued that the alleged breach of contract waived the school board's and district officials' immunity under Texas law.
Varela was awarded a TRO by a trial court that prevented La Joya ISD from recognizing the results of the second tryout. La Joya ISD filed a plea to the jurisdiction on June 11, which was followed the next day by a temporary injunction (TI) hearing. The TI order, which mirrored the TRO’s provisions, was granted on July 2. La Joya ISD appealed, which brings us to last week’s appellate decision.
Uhm, Can We Just Skip That Disclaimer?
As persuasive as Varela’s approach may have been to the trial court, the Court of Appeals panel agreed with the La Joya ISD’s claim that her argument contained a fatal flaw: the Cheer Constitution wasn’t a contract at all. Likely drafted with a lack of intent to bind the La Joya ISD to the terms dictated by a contract, the Cheer Constitution provided more than enough wiggle room for the panel to view it as more of a set of guidelines that it had exclusive control over.
The only signature spaces on the Cheer Constitution are for the cheerleader and their parents, and serve as acknowledgment that they have read, understood, and accepted the provisions contained within. These include:
- A disclaimer noting that involvement in cheer is a “privilege, not a right”
- The constitution may be amended unilaterally by the District’s officials
- District officials are the “final authority” to interpret the Cheer Constitution
- The Cheer Constitution is not a complete list of rules and regulations applying to the cheer team
Any one of these conditions would have likely sufficed as justification for the panel’s decision, which, as a jurisdictional challenge, was reviewed de novo. With four instances indicating that the Cheer Constitution was not an irrevocable contract, the panel ruled that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant either the TRO or the TI. In addition to reversing the decisions, the appellate court dismissed the case and rendered all pending motions moot.
With over half of the school year already gone, it’s unknown how much being ordered to share the captain’s role will affect Varela’s daughter. Hopefully, stitching “CO-” on her uniform will be the most difficult part.
Related Resources
- Yeah! Cheerleading Not a Sport Under Title IX (FindLaw’s Law and Daily Life)
- What Is the Most Common Legal Remedy for Breach of Contract? (FindLaw’s Small Business Law)
- Milwaukee Bucks Settle Cheerleader Pay Lawsuit (FindLaw’s Tarnished Twenty)
