Chicago – Attorney General Kwame Raoul today announced he is joining the NCAA in requesting a federal judge extend his temporary restraining order granted earlier this week prohibiting the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) from enforcing its transfer eligibility rule until at least the end of the academic year. Extending the restraining order would allow collegiate athletes to play sports without concern as to their status with the NCAA.
“Collegiate athletes deserve to know that they can play while our lawsuit challenging the transfer eligibility rule continues,” Raoul said. “I filed this lawsuit to bring fairness to collegiate sports and ensure the needs of athletes and their families are prioritized and respected.”
The joint motion requesting an extension of the restraining order was filed today in the Northern District of West Virginia.
Raoul and a bipartisan coalition of six attorneys general filed their lawsuit on Dec. 7 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia seeking the temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to keep the NCAA from enforcing the rule.
On Wednesday, Judge John Preston Bailey granted the states a temporary restraining order forbidding the NCAA from enforcing the rule for 14 days and scheduled a hearing for Dec. 27 to decide whether that prohibition should continue until the case is decided.
If the judge grants the joint motion filed today, the Dec. 27 hearing would be unnecessary, and a trial date could be set for after the spring sports season ends.
The NCAA rule requires college athletes who transfer among Division I schools to wait one year before competing in games, unless the NCAA waives the rule for a particular athlete. The NCAA began automatically exempting first-time transfers from the regulation in 2021 but has continued to enforce the rule for subsequent transfers and deny waivers for no legitimate reason.
Since its founding in 1906, the NCAA has expanded its rulebook beyond field contests to regulate off-the-field competition among its member institutions and manage the burgeoning business of collegiate sports. Some regulations are essential for the administration of college sports, the coalition’s lawsuit acknowledges. However, Raoul and the attorneys general argue that certain rules lacking a clear procompetitive benefit may run afoul of the nation’s antitrust laws, which are rooted in the belief that market forces yield the best outcomes.
In justifying the one-year waiting period for second-time transfers, the NCAA cites the promotion of academic well-being and the preservation of athletic amateurism. Raoul and the coalition call the connection between the rule and these goals “pretextual”; note that these purported goals can be accomplished through less-restrictive means; and argue that the harm it does to athletes, universities, and fans far exceeds any supposed benefits.
According to Raoul and the coalition, the one-year waiting period constitutes 20% of the total time allotted by NCAA regulations for the completion of a college athlete’s full eligibility – and, as such, could prove devastating for athletes seeking to optimize their career and welfare by transferring to schools that better suit them.
The NCAA often describes the college athlete experience as transformative, with competition playing a key role. However, Raoul and the attorneys general argue that preventing students from competing hinders the full realization of this experience. Students deprived of the opportunity to compete in their chosen sports are denied the benefits that competition offers in preparing them for life, as acknowledged by the NCAA, and often suffer other harms, including financial harms and negative impacts to their mental health and well-being.
