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:

    Clary v. Pennsylvania State Univ., et al. (M.D. Pa. Dec. 2, 2025)

    Opinion Granting in Part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former student-athlete and member of the men’s basketball team at Pennsylvania State University, brought defamation claims against the university and its head basketball coach based on a series of statements allegedly made by the coach concerning plaintiff’s departure from the team. The court held that plaintiff had sufficiently stated a defamation claim against the coach based on the coach’s statements that (1) plaintiff had refused to return to the university because his father was “after more money”; and (2) plaintiff “decided himself” that he was going to leave the university. In both instances, the court found it “reasonable to infer . . . that [the coach’s] statements caused financial harm to [plaintiff] by harming his reputation and forcing him to attend a less prestigious university.” However, the court dismissed plaintiff’s claims regarding other statements made by the coach, finding the allegations lacked necessary details as to the content, audience, and timing of the statements. The court also dismissed plaintiff’s defamation claims against the university, finding no basis to impose vicarious liability since plaintiff had failed to show the coach’s statements were made within the scope of his employment or with the purpose of serving the university.

    Topics:

    Compliance & Risk Management | Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration | Student Athlete Issues | Students | Tort Litigation

  • Date:

    Martinson v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (D. Nev. Sep. 18, 2025)

    Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiff, a student athlete at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, (UNLV) sued the NCAA arguing the NCAA’s “Five-Year Rule,” which capped plaintiff’s playing eligibility to a maximum of two or three seasons due to his prior playing time at a junior college, was a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. In granting plaintiff’s preliminary injunction, the court held that (1) plaintiff was likely to succeed on the merits, (2) plaintiff would suffer immediate and irreparable harm in being disqualified for the 2025-2026 season, noting that in addition to losing his spot on the football team, he would also lose “time-sensitive, unparalleled, and incalculable career opportunities” and (3) enjoining anticompetitive eligibility rules “serves a compelling public interest of increased participation and competition in the competitive football services labor market.” The court also granted plaintiff’s request to enjoin the NCAA’s Rule of Restitution, in order to prevent the NCAA from punishing the plaintiff, either directly or indirectly by punishing any institution for which he plays.  

    Topics:

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

  • Date:

    Department of Education Resolution Agreement with Wagner College Regarding Title IX Concerns (Aug. 1, 2025)

    The Department of Education (the Department) announced that it entered into a resolution agreement with Wagner College to maintain compliance with Title IX.  The Office for Civil Rights previously launched a directed investigation after a female athlete at the college forfeited a fencing match by taking a knee because her opponent was a biological male competing in the female-only category. The college has agreed to: (i) amend its athletic policy to adopt biology-based definitions for the words “male” and “female” pursuant to Title IX; (ii) issue a public statement to the college community and post the statement in a prominent location on its main website and on each of its websites for women’s athletics stating that it will comply with Title IX; (iii) rescind any guidance that authorized males to compete in women’s athletics, remove or revise any internal and public-facing statements or documents that are inconsistent with Title IX, and notify all staff and women’s athletics teams of all such rescissions; and (iv) issue a personalized letter of apology to any female fencer at the college and issue a public statement of apology to all female athletes who were required to compete against a male in an athletics program designated for women. 

    Topics:

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

  • 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

  • Date:

    U.S. Department of Education Resolution Agreement with the University of Pennsylvania on Title IX Violations (Jul. 1, 2025)

    U.S. Department of Education announced a Resolution Agreement with the University of Pennsylvania to comply with Title IX. Following an investigation into the University by the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) in February 2025, OCR found that the University violated Title IX by allowing a male student athlete to compete in women’s sports and access female-only facilities. By entering into the Resolution Agreement, the University has agreed to (i) restore Division I swimming records and titles to affected female athletes; (ii) issue a statement that the University forbids males from competing in sports and accessing “female-only intimate facilities”; (iii) prominently publish the statement on the University’s main website and on all women’s athletics websites; (iv) adopt biology-based definitions for the words “male” and “female” pursuant to Title IX and President Trump’s Executive Orders, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism” and “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports”; (v) rescind any polices and guidance that violate Title IX; and (vi) issue personalized letters of apology to the impacted athletes. 

    Topics:

    Athletics & Sports | Gender Equity in Athletics | Student Athlete Issues | Students | Title IX & Student Sexual Misconduct

  • Date:

    NCAA Q&A on House Settlement (Jun. 13, 2025)

    The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) along with the Atlantic Coast Conference, Big Ten Conference, Big 12 Conference, Pac-12 Conference, and Southeastern Conference published a Question and Answer on the implementation of the House settlement to provide guidance to Division I membership on the implementation of the settlement agreement. The document details changes to Division I legislation, roster limits, benefits cap, Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) contracts and payments, and arbitration. 

    Topics:

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

  • Date:

    In Re: College Athlete NIL Litigation (N.D. Cal. Jun. 6, 2025)

    Opinion Regarding Order Granting Motion for Final Approval of Settlement Agreement. Plaintiffs, current and former Division I student-athletes who allege defendants, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), and Conference defendants, including the Pac-12 Conference, Big Ten Conference, Big 12 Conference, Southeastern Conference, and Atlantic Coast Conference violated antitrust laws, specifically the Sherman Act. Plaintiffs challenged the NCAA’s prohibition on student-athlete compensation, its restriction on the number of scholarships institutions can provide to Division I student-athletes in each sport, and sought the ability to receive compensation from third parties, institutions, and conferences for the use of their name, image, or likeness (NIL). The parties negotiated a settlement agreement (the Agreement) for more than a year. The Agreement requires defendants to pay $2.567 billion in total compensation to plaintiffs and class members who competed between 2016 and present day. It also requires the NCAA to modify its rules to eliminate existing scholarship limits and allows for adoption of Division I sports roster limitations. The Agreement requires that any endorsement deal between a booster and an athlete will be vetted to ensure it is for a “valid business purpose.” The opt-in deadline for non-defendant schools to commit to revenue sharing is June 15, 2025, while the first date for direct institutional revenue sharing payments to student-athletes will begin is July 1, 2025.

    Topics:

    Athletics & Sports | Athletics Compliance & NCAA Rules | Athletics Operations | Gender Equity in Athletics | 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