Federal Judge in Tennessee denies their Temporary Restraining Order in regards to NIL.
A federal judge in Tennessee denied a temporary restraining order Tuesday that would allow high school prospects and transfer portal players in two states to communicate with NIL collectives during their recruitment.
Judge Clifton L. Corker ruled in favor of the NCAA in the Eastern District of Tennessee after attorneys general in Tennessee and Virginia filed an antitrust lawsuit last Wednesday. The decision comes a day before National Signing Day.
In Corker’s decision, the judge states Tennessee and Virginia “failed to demonstrate, at this juncture, the requisite irreparable harm for the issuance of a TRO.”
While the TRO has been denied, Corker also notes in his decision that the two states’ merits are likely to succeed. A preliminary injunction hearing is set for Tuesday, Feb. 13.
“Considering the evidence currently before the Court, Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim under the Sherman Act,” the judge writes.
A key reason why the TRO was not granted is that while athletes are not able to obtain their true NIL value, the harm is monetary damages and not irreparable, the judge writes.
February 7th, 2024 at 6:47 AM ^
while athletes are not able to obtain their true NIL value, the harm is monetary damages and not irreparable, the judge writes.
Easy for an old rich man with a JD to say.
February 7th, 2024 at 7:19 AM ^
In general, injunctions - court orders to do (or not do) stuff - are disfavored when money damages are available. The idea here is that, if the NCAA regulations violate the antitrust laws, the athletes can sue for - and win - cash. The judge isn't saying that it's OK that the athletes are injured by this law, but that money damages are reparable with cash.
Source: lawyer.
February 7th, 2024 at 8:13 AM ^
Also federal judges aren’t “rich.” Upper middle class or lower upper class, sure. But rich by any means. Great benefits tho and a pretty decent salary. There’s actually been a spate of federal judges recently who came from large prestigious law firms leaving the federal bench to go back to private practice citing the pay and better opportunities in private practice.
February 7th, 2024 at 8:52 AM ^
Here is the pay for federal judges. I heard on the news last night that the governor of Michigan only makes 150k and something like the 250th highest paid state employee.
February 7th, 2024 at 9:35 AM ^
Yea, I mean nothing to scoff at by any means. But you factor in cost of living - that salary isn't taking you very far in NYC, SF, or even Austin - taxes, saving for retirement, if you have kids, putting away for college, etc. and it's easy to see why, unless you really really like the job or want the power or want to be an appellate judge, going back to private practice is a better gig for some. Just depends on your personality and what you want out of life.
February 7th, 2024 at 9:46 AM ^
I'm not disagreeing with you. I've always wondered why judges appear to live above what their salary would suggest. I think it's probably because a lot get appointed later in life when their kids are out of the house. The salary wouldn't suggest a country club/vacation home/yacht lifestyle.
February 7th, 2024 at 10:38 AM ^
Because advanced degrees and politicians are both more likely to come from money in the first place.
February 7th, 2024 at 10:41 AM ^
Well, as we have seen demonstrated, some judges get many other benefits beyond their salaries.
February 7th, 2024 at 11:59 AM ^
I think many judges have spent at least some time in private practice, and the few judges I know were partners in their law firms. So they probably took a major pay cut when they became judges, but had built up wealth in their 30s and 40s before being appointed/elected to the bench.
Also the judges I know have all worked into their late 60s and early 70s, probably long past when they were doing it for the salary.
February 7th, 2024 at 8:14 PM ^
Federal judges are entitled to a pension equal to their full salary when they hit retirement age. They literally aren't doing it for the money once they can leave, but most all stay on.
From my prior life clerking, it's definitely the case that some judges are independently wealthy. But many were civil servants or worked for public interest causes. There were some interpersonal tensions between the judges who didn't need the salary and those who did.
February 7th, 2024 at 9:55 AM ^
Judge in Tennessee.
February 7th, 2024 at 10:45 AM ^
Is that "Nothing but Trouble?" very high on my list of the worst movies I've ever seen.
February 7th, 2024 at 12:36 PM ^
It is from Nothing but Trouble. This scene alone made me stop eating sausages for a couple years as a kid.
February 7th, 2024 at 10:55 AM ^
It's pretty establish practice to not grant a TRO when the only damage is monetary, but I'm only a young-ish middle-class man with a JD so feel free to ignore it.
February 7th, 2024 at 6:48 AM ^
NCAA going down again. They just don't seem to get it. They are effectively a monopoly. You can't abuse your market power as a monopoly. It's antitrust 101. Restricting player transfers is an impermissible restraint of trade. Restricting NIL is an impermissible restraint of trade. Wait until someone challenges the fundamental student/athlete requirements, e.g. a player is limited to 4 years in a 5 year window. Guess what ... also very likely an impermissible restraint of trade.
February 7th, 2024 at 8:36 AM ^
Nothing is as black and white as it seems. I am an antitrust attorney (retired) who previously represented the NBA and NHL. While conspiracies to restrain trade are generally violative of Sec. 1 of the Sherman Act, there are exceptions.
One of those exceptions, primarily applied to the pro leagues, are private association rules designed to maintain competitive balance. For example, the draft clearly restrains the free market ability of athletes to bargain and sign with any team they want, but the draft has passed muster as a reasonable regulation to maintain competitive balance.
Similarly, salary caps restrain the free market ability of athletes to bargain for a much as they can, but it too has been deemed as a reasonable measure to maintain competitive balance.
The question is whether the NCAA can mount a viable argument as to the need to control NIL and other similar issues to maintain competitive balance.
The baseball draft was initiated in part to prevent the Yankees from continuing to sign all the best players, due to their wealth comparative to other teams. Can the NCAA argue that regulations are needed to prevent OSU, for example, to repeatedly fire the money cannon to outcompete other schools? Yes, that would decrease athletes' ability to maximize their income, but it's been done before. Of course, a counterargument is that other schools, including Michigan, are free to fire the money cannon as well, but are unwilling to do so. But, in the case of an Indiana, for example, the cannons are clearly not of equal size. I'm just pointing out that there are wrinkles to be considered.
February 7th, 2024 at 8:53 AM ^
I certainly trust your experience as an antitrust lawyer as opposed to my layman’s view view as a simple fan but you’ll never be able to convince me that the 1922 Federal League case that stated baseball was not interstate commerce and therefore was exempt from Sherman was not complete and total bullshit. The owners had zero interest in maintaining competitive balance but rather restricting player movement for cost concerns. The fact that the case was affirmed later on in Toolson and, I believe, still stands today is an insult to those players who tried to organize back then. In the end it worked out thanks to Marvin Miller with help from Messersmith and McNally (see Ohtani, Shohei)
February 7th, 2024 at 9:37 AM ^
thanks for your insight. Doesn't the fact that the professional leagues are unions and everything is negotiated between the league and the union play a huge part of this?
February 7th, 2024 at 7:30 AM ^
Given Warde very recent stance on NIL any further opening up of the NIL regulations seems like it would make it even harder for UM to compete with the majority of power 2 programs for talented players.
If the current analogy is "the speed limit is 50mph but everyone else is going 75" then this seems like it just means those guy currently going 75 can go even faster.
February 7th, 2024 at 8:12 AM ^
Exactly right and this is why I rolled my eyes years ago when everyone talked about how NIL would level the playing field for Michigan and its mythical “money cannon.” Michigan never has and never will “play like that.”
February 7th, 2024 at 9:50 AM ^
The speed limit for sign stealing was 55 and we dared go 57 and saw how that worked out. Nil at some point is gonna have to policed, and not just for programs that piss the ncaa off (Florida). If it’s the Wild West then Michigan needs to saddle up.
February 7th, 2024 at 9:18 AM ^
Interesting...money damages are certainly "reparable".. You can always go back and throw enough money at someone to make them satisfied. That takes care of the player, but it doesn't do shit to make the school "whole" if, in the meatime, the player has signed with another team.