Login
Home  |  Legal Resources  |  Publications

Cases & Developments

FILTERS

Find by DATE
Reset

Latest Cases & Developments

  • Date:

    ACE Response to RFI on Classifying Student Athletes as Employees (Apr. 8, 2026)

    The American Council on Education (ACE) along with five other higher education associations, sent a letter to Chairman Cassidy of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee in response to his request for information on “Stabilizing College Sports and Preserving Opportunities for Athletes.” The associations write that “treating student-athletes as employees under the NLRA or the FLSA has deeply troubling implications for the continued viability of intercollegiate athletics.” The comments also outline concerns regarding the potential need for increased employees, increased costs, and compliance with Department of Labor regulations.

    Topics:

    Athletics & Sports | Student Athlete Issues | Students

  • Date:

    Urgent National Action to Save College Sports – The White House (Apr. 3, 2026)

    Executive Order: “Urgent National Action to Save College Sports.” This Order directs federal agencies, beginning August 1, 2026, to evaluate whether universities that violate key athletics rules, particularly around pay-for-play (including NIL arrangements), transfer policies, and eligibility limits, should remain eligible for federal funding, while also encouraging national governing bodies to adopt standardized rules such as a five-year participation window, structured transfer limits, and protections against improper financial inducements and agent misconduct. The order emphasizes preserving the financial viability of non-revenue programs, especially women’s and Olympic sports, amid what it characterizes as a “chaotic” system driven by court rulings and inconsistent state laws, and calls on Congress to enact comprehensive legislation to provide long-term stability. The Order further directs the Administrator of General Services and the Department of Education to increase data collection across college athletics to ensure compliance. The White House also issued a Fact Sheet with the Order.

    Topics:

    Athletics & Sports | Athletics Operations | Gender Equity in Athletics | Student Athlete Issues | Students

  • Date:

    Blythe v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (D. Nev. Feb. 20, 2026)

    Opinion and Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiff, a Division I baseball recruit for the University of Nevada, Reno, challenged the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s (NCAA) Five-Year Rule and sought a preliminary injunction barring enforcement after his hardship waiver was denied and he was declared ineligible based on his prior seasons playing baseball at Division II and NAIA institutions. The court held that plaintiff was likely to succeed on the merits of his Sherman Act claim, finding that the rule was commercial in nature and produced substantial anticompetitive effects, as well as finding the NCAA’s procompetitive rationales for the rule were insufficient. The court reasoned that the Five-Year Rule “forecloses the opportunity for qualified student-athletes from non-NCAA schools from entering a labor market for Division I baseball . . . simply because of their non-NCAA status.” While the court concluded that plaintiff faced immediate and irreparable harm “due to the time-sensitive loss of season play, compensation and related opportunity,” the NCAA “[would] not.” Accordingly, the court granted the preliminary injunction and enjoined enforcement of the Five-Year Rule against the plaintiff.  

    Topics:

    Antitrust | Athletics & Sports | Athletics Compliance & NCAA Rules | Student Athlete Issues | Students | Taxes & Finances

  • Date:

    Elad v. NCAA (3rd Cir. Nov. 25, 2025)

    Opinion Vacating and Remanding. Plaintiff, a football player at Rutgers University, challenged the NCAA’s “JUCO Rule,” which counts years spent at a junior college toward an athlete’s five-year eligibility clock, alleging that the rule unreasonably restrains the college-football-athlete labor market in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. A district court granted plaintiff a preliminary injunction enjoining the NCAA from enforcing the rule against him, following a failed effort by Rutgers University to obtain a waiver from the NCAA. On appeal, the Third Circuit vacated the district court’s ruling, holding the district court erred by failing to adequately define the relevant market for its analysis, and remanded the case for further consideration. The court reasoned that the district court merely recited plaintiff’s expert’s identified market and “did not engage in a fact-specific analysis of the relevant market despite the parties’ differing opinions on the topic.” The court further reasoned that the definition of the relevant market relied upon by the district court “[did] not account for changed market realities in Alston’s wake” and ordered the district court to conduct a relevant market analysis on remand.

    Topics:

    Antitrust | Athletics & Sports | Athletics Compliance & NCAA Rules | Student Athlete Issues | Taxes & Finances

  • Date:

    Saving College Sports – The White House (Jul. 24, 2025)

    Executive Order: “Saving College Sports.” This Order aims to stabilize college athletics by addressing the growing concerns around athlete compensation and the impact of recent legal rulings. The Order focuses on preserving and expanding opportunities for non-revenue and women’s sports, while prohibiting third-party pay-for-play arrangements. The Order mandates that athletic departments with revenues over $125 million increase scholarship opportunities and roster spots for non-revenue sports starting in the 2025-2026 season. Departments with revenues over $50 million must maintain or increase these opportunities, while those with smaller budgets should avoid disproportionately reducing scholarships for non-revenue sports. Additionally, the Order explicitly bans third-party, pay-for-play payments to athletes. However, athletes may still receive compensation for legitimate market value services, like brand endorsements. The Order clarifies that any revenue-sharing arrangements between universities and athletes should not undermine opportunities for less profitable programs. Finally, the Order requires the Secretary of Labor and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to clarify the status of student-athletes, along with directing the Attorney General and Federal Trade Commission to generate a report on how to protect college athletics from potential legal threats (such as antitrust lawsuits), and further requires the Secretary of Education to issue an implementation plan using mechanisms such as Title IX enforcement, federal funding leverage, and interstate commerce laws. The White House also published a Fact Sheet on the Order.

    Topics:

    Athletics & Sports | Athletics Compliance & NCAA Rules | Athletics Operations | Student Athlete Issues | Students

NACUA Annual Conference

Join us in the Music City June 29 – July 2 to connect, learn, and lead alongside higher education attorneys shaping policy, practice, and impact nationwide together.

Register