BRAHAM v. National Collegiate Athletic Association
3:25-cv-00253
| D. Nev. | Jul 18, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Cortez Braham, Jr., a college football player, challenged NCAA bylaws that limit eligibility for JUCO (junior college) transfer athletes, primarily the Five-Year Rule, which counts JUCO seasons toward eligibility.
- After playing at a junior college and later transferring to Division I programs (WVU and UNR), Braham was ruled ineligible for further competition due to the Five-Year Rule.
- Braham sought injunctive relief, arguing the NCAA bylaws unlawfully restrict his and other JUCO athletes’ opportunities to compete, earn NIL (name, image, likeness) compensation, and pursue professional careers.
- The NCAA refused to support a waiver for Braham, leaving him without internal administrative remedies, prompting him to file suit.
- The Court considered whether to grant a preliminary injunction preventing the NCAA from enforcing the Five-Year Rule and the Rule of Restitution as to Braham for the upcoming football season.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Commercial Nature of Rules | NCAA eligibility rules are commercial post-Alston due to NIL reality | Rules are noncommercial; eligibility not subject to antitrust laws | Rules are now commercial, subject to Sherman Act/antitrust scrutiny |
| Anticompetitive Effect of Five-Year Rule | Restricts JUCO players’ DI football/NIL opportunities | No anticompetitive effect; just defines eligibility | Rule restrains competition in DI football labor market |
| Procompetitive Justifications | NCAA has no compelling justification; alternatives exist | Rules preserve “unique” college athletics, expand student opportunities | NCAA’s justifications unpersuasive, exceptions undermine their logic |
| Irreparable Harm | Loss of unique opportunity to play, NIL deals, and career impact | Ineligibility does not equal irreparable harm | Loss constitutes irreparable harm; injunction appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (Preliminary injunction standard — likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of equities, public interest)
- Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Alston, 594 U.S. 69 (NCAA restrictions on athlete compensation are subject to antitrust scrutiny)
- O'Bannon v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 802 F.3d 1049 (Distinguishing commercial and noncommercial NCAA rules)
- California Dental Ass’n v. F.T.C., 526 U.S. 756 (Context-sensitive approach under the rule of reason)