to challenge the constitutionality of the recruiting rule TSSAA now recognizes, as it must under the Supreme Court’s ruling, that it is a state actor subject to constitutional challenges. It nevertheless argues that Brentwood has waived its right to question the constitutionality of the recruiting rule because, by voluntarily choosing to be a member of TSSAA, it has agreed to abide by the rules of the organization. TSSAA thus, contends that Brentwood is faced with “the choice between joining TSSAA and complying with the rules or competing in interscholastic athletics as a non-member of TSSAA.” The five cases that TSSAA cites to support its argument, however, are distinguishable from the case at hand. See Town of Newton v. Rumery, 480 U.S. 386, 107 S.Ct. 1187, 94 L.Ed.2d 405 (1987) (<HOLDING>); D.H. Overmyer Co. v. Frick Co., 405 U.S. 174,
holding that the constitution does not require the government to disclose impeachment evidence prior to entering a plea agreement with a criminal defendant recognizing that a defendant in a criminal case may waive any right even a constitutional right by means of a plea agreement internal citation omitted recognizing that defendant may waive miranda rights holding that juveniles may waive constitutional rights holding that a criminal defendant can waive important constitutional rights by entering into a plea bargain