Idaho

Issue: The antitrust case that produced the $2.576 billion settlement, direct revenue sharing, and roster limits.

Where it stands: Final judgment entered June 6, 2025. Roughly a dozen appeals are consolidated in the Ninth Circuit, led by objectors arguing the back-damages formula — which sends over 90% of the fund to male football and basketball players — violates Title IX. The appeals paused distribution of the back-damages fund; go-forward revenue sharing was not stayed. Oral argument has not been formally calendared; the Ninth Circuit has tentatively pointed to November 2026. A second track is live in the district court: incoming Division I athletes joining for 2026-27 have their own right to object to the injunctive-relief settlement, objections were due August 11, 2026, two more incoming athletes filed objections on August 17, 2026, responses were due September 1, 2026 and were filed that day — class counsel and the defendants each filed briefs opposing the objectors — and on September 3, 2026 Judge Wilken issued an opinion and order overruling those objections. She rejected the incoming class's Title IX, roster-limit and program-cut arguments and left the injunctive-relief settlement in place unmodified, so the settlement governs the 2026-27 class as written. That ruling is confined to the district-court objection track: the consolidated Ninth Circuit appeals are untouched, and the pause on distribution of the back-damages fund remains in force.

Issue: Whether the College Sports Commission may treat multimedia-rights companies and third-party brand sponsors as "associated entities," pulling the deals they arrange into NIL Go review.

Where it stands: Class counsel moved April 20, 2026 to enforce the settlement against the CSC. The Special Master denied that motion June 25, 2026 (Dkt. 1136), declining to exempt multimedia-rights companies and brand sponsors as a category. Plaintiffs objected and moved for reversal July 9, 2026 (Dkt. 1138); the NCAA opposed July 23, 2026 (Dkt. 1142), and the noticed August 13 hearing was vacated July 10, 2026 (Dkt. 1139). On August 4, 2026 Judge Wilken affirmed the Special Master's order, declining to declare categorically that multimedia-rights companies fall outside the entities the CSC may review — so they remain subject to review case by case, chiefly where the company both manages a school's intellectual-property rights and arranges deals for that school's athletes. The same order held that plaintiffs are entitled to request and receive documents about the CSC's investigations of multimedia-rights companies and third-party brand sponsors, so class counsel can test whether the CSC is in fact deciding associated-entity status case by case; disputes over that production go to Magistrate Judge Cousins, and the parties were directed to confer by August 18, 2026. They did: on August 19, 2026 the Special Master adopted the parties' joint discovery status report on how multimedia-rights companies are being classified, and directed a further status update by September 1, 2026. That update came in on schedule: on September 1, 2026 the parties filed a notice stating they had met and conferred on the multimedia-rights classification question and would report to the court again on September 15, 2026. The dispute is being managed on rolling status reports rather than through a further ruling, so the case-by-case classification regime stands in the meantime.

Issue: A class action attacking the revenue-share cap and the NIL Go clearinghouse as federal and state antitrust violations, and as conflicting with NIL statutes in roughly 17 states.

Where it stands: Filed June 9, 2026 by two college football players. The court set a briefing schedule on July 31, 2026; defendants' answer or motion to dismiss is due September 11, 2026, plaintiffs' opposition October 26, 2026 and the reply December 4, 2026. On that calendar the pleadings will not be ripe for decision before December at the earliest. The first of those dates has been met: the defendants filed their motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim on September 11, 2026, so the case is in briefing rather than waiting on a first response. The opposition and reply deadlines are unchanged, which leaves the December estimate intact. No ruling yet.

Issue: A damages case attacking pay-for-play restrictions more broadly than House, brought by athletes who stayed outside that settlement.

Where it stands: Survived dismissal and remains live. Discovery deadlines were extended by joint motion in May 2026, settlement mediation was set for June 24, 2026, and a substantial document production is due August 21, 2026. No trial date has been set.

Issue: A separate challenge to NIL compensation restrictions.

Where it stands: Dismissed December 15, 2025 on statute-of-limitations and settlement-preclusion grounds. Notice of appeal filed January 8, 2026; the appeal is pending.

Issue: Whether the NCAA may apply its new age-based eligibility rule to shut the high-school class of 2022 out of a fifth season.

Where it stands: Plaintiffs styled their motion as one for a temporary restraining order but pleaded a preliminary injunction in the alternative; on July 31, 2026 the court construed it as a preliminary-injunction motion and granted that relief outright, together with certification of a nationwide Rule 23(b)(2) class of Division I athletes who began play in 2022–23, completed four years of eligibility under the old rules by the end of 2025–26, and are barred from a fifth season by the new rule. The court held eligibility rules are commercial under Section 1 of the Sherman Act and likely an unreasonable restraint, rejected the NCAA's argument that "exiting" one class of athletes expands output, found irreparable harm, and held the House settlement released nothing here because the rule was adopted after that settlement was finally approved. A clarification order issued August 2, 2026 sets the reach of the injunction: the NCAA is enjoined from prohibiting class members from competing in a fifth season "under the Rule … or any NCAA Bylaw," but the order does not enjoin the House settlement or its terms, does not enjoin transfer rules, does not enjoin roster caps, and does not stop a member school from making eligibility decisions based on whether an athlete was over twenty years old when they enrolled in 2022–23. Those four words — "or any NCAA Bylaw" — are now the fight. The NCAA moved to stay the injunction on August 2, 2026 (Dkt. 43), calling the order "egregiously wrong," and filed its notice of expedited appeal to the Tenth Circuit on August 3, 2026 (No. 26-1309). On August 10, 2026 Judge Sweeney denied that stay in full (Dkt. 56), rejecting the NCAA on all four Nken factors: it had made no strong showing of likely success — its stay motion "essentially rehashes arguments" already rejected and barely engaged the clear-error standard that governs the court's factual findings on appeal; it offered no evidence of irreparable harm to itself; its claim that the class faces only "minimal harm" the court answered with a one-word "Nonsense"; and the public interest lies in antitrust compliance. The order's framing is that the disruption the NCAA complains of is "a bind of its own making." The injunction therefore remains in force. The NCAA had already filed an emergency motion in the Tenth Circuit before the ruling (No. 26-1309, Dkt. 9), and on August 11, 2026 that court entered an expedited briefing schedule on whether to pause the injunction while the appeal proceeds: the athletes' response was due August 14, 2026 and the NCAA's reply August 17, 2026. That is a scheduling order and nothing more: the class filed its response on August 14, 2026 and briefing closed on August 17, 2026 with the NCAA's reply. The NCAA filed its reply on August 16, 2026 (10th Cir. Dkt. 18), closing briefing a day early. On the morning of Friday, August 21, 2026 the Tenth Circuit granted the stay. The panel — Judges Timothy M. Tymkovich, Paul J. Kelly, Jr. and Veronica S. Rossman — split 2–1: Tymkovich and Kelly concluded the NCAA had satisfied the traditional Nken factors, including a strong showing of likely success on the merits, while Judge Rossman would have denied the stay. The order is a short one and is not a merits ruling; it pauses Judge Sweeney's July 31 injunction while the expedited appeal proceeds, which means class members who were competing only because of that injunction are ineligible again. The Tenth Circuit has not yet calendared argument on the merits of the appeal, but the expedited schedule it ordered is now running: the NCAA filed its opening brief on September 1, 2026, the athletes' response brief was filed on schedule on September 8, 2026, and the NCAA's reply is due September 11, 2026. Briefing therefore closes in the second week of September, and a merits decision is unlikely before the season is well underway — the stay governs in the meantime. Separately, plaintiffs had moved August 4, 2026 to enforce the injunction (Dkt. 46), arguing the NCAA was using transfer rules and transfer-related penalties to confine class members to a single buyer of their labor and asking the court to require notice to schools and procedures for signing fifth-year athletes; that motion was fully briefed and awaiting a ruling when the stay issued, and with the injunction paused the district court denied it as moot — there is nothing left to enforce while the stay stands. The appeal itself is now moving quickly: on August 25, 2026 the Tenth Circuit granted the class's unopposed motion to expedite briefing on the merits and took under advisement their separate request to expedite argument. Briefing has now closed. The NCAA filed its reply brief on September 11, 2026, completing the expedited merits schedule, and the same day the class filed a notice of supplemental authority putting the Ninth Circuit's two-day-old decision in Blythe v. NCAA before the panel. That is a notable filing for the athletes to have made, because Blythe vacated an athlete injunction — but it also holds that eligibility rules are commercial and reachable under the Sherman Act, which is the threshold the NCAA has been contesting, and it makes the Ninth Circuit the fourth to say so. The Tenth Circuit therefore has the appeal fully briefed with the newest sister-circuit authority in front of it. No argument date has been set.

Issue: A second nationwide class action against the same age-based rule, drafted to reach the athletes the Wisne class never covered — Division II players, and athletes trying to move up to Division I.

Where it stands: Filed August 20, 2026 in the District of Colorado — the same district as Wisne, but before a different judge, Regina M. Rodriguez. On August 28, 2026 the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding named plaintiffs, reported to include Gomes, Moon, Hara, Harman, Okorougo and Zielinski, together with a motion to certify under Rule 23(b)(2) and a motion for a preliminary injunction granting classwide eligibility for the 2026-27 season. The design of the case is the gap in Wisne. The class Judge Sweeney certified reaches only athletes who previously competed in Division I; this complaint proposes classes reaching athletes who want to play a fifth season in Division II, and athletes who competed outside Division I and now seek to move up to it. The proposed Division II class is defined as all persons in the United States who began collegiate competition in the 2022-23 season, competed in NCAA Division II, completed four years of eligibility under the prior rules by the end of 2025-26, and are barred from a fifth season by the Division II rule — the age-based model the Division II Executive Board adopted as emergency legislation on August 5, 2026, effective immediately. The supporting record is reported to rest on the reasoning and evidence developed in Wisne, with added evidence about the Division I and Division II athlete labor markets. Neither motion has been ruled on. Two structural facts sit on top of the case. The Tenth Circuit stayed the Wisne injunction on August 21, 2026 and is hearing that appeal on an expedited schedule; the same court sits over this judge, so what it says on the merits in Wisne is likely to govern here. And if the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation centralizes the eligibility docket at its September 24, 2026 hearing, this case is a candidate to be swept in with the rest — no longer a hypothetical: on September 2, 2026 the NCAA filed a notice with the Panel naming Moore as a related action, so the case built to replace the stayed nationwide injunction is now formally on the transfer list. No ruling on the certification or injunction motions had been entered as of this update.

Issue: Whether a group of roughly seventy-three class-of-2022 athletes can be declared eligible for a fifth season and given a transfer window outside the NCAA’s closed portal periods — including athletes who had already signed professional contracts.

Where it stands: On August 18, 2026 a California state court granted a temporary restraining order in favor of a group reported at roughly seventy-three student-athletes, ordering that the NCAA may not enforce its transfer restrictions against them and may not bar those who signed a professional contract before July 31, 2026 from competing in 2026-27. The order opened a transfer-portal window for the named plaintiffs immediately and running through Monday, August 24, 2026. Named plaintiffs identified in reporting include Michigan State center Jaxon Kohler, UCLA guards Donovan Dent and Skyy Clark, and Florida guard Xaivian Lee; Kohler entered the portal and committed to BYU on August 20, 2026. This is the largest single group of athletes covered by any individual eligibility order to date, and it is expressly independent of the Colorado class action: the Tenth Circuit’s August 21, 2026 stay in Wisne is a different court, a different body of law and a different set of plaintiffs, and by its terms reaches only the Colorado class. Athletes covered by this order therefore remained eligible through the stay. Reporting describes the relief interchangeably as a temporary restraining order and as a preliminary injunction, and the NCAA has been reported as able to appeal it. The transfer window this order opened closed on Monday, August 24, 2026. By its own terms the order runs until further order of the court or until the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction is decided. As of August 31, 2026 no preliminary-injunction hearing date, extension, modification or appellate ruling has been publicly reported, and the last reporting to address the point — commentary reviewing Kohler's position on August 24, 2026 — described the Tenth Circuit's stay in Wisne as having no bearing on it. Treat continued operation as reported rather than confirmed. A separate obstacle arrived after that reporting and then grew: between August 25 and August 27, 2026 all four power conferences adopted rules barring athletes with professional experience — the SEC and the Big Ten on August 25, the Big 12 on August 26, the ACC on August 27 — which reach some of the athletes this order was written to protect regardless of what the order says about the NCAA. Two later orders, in Dallas County on August 27, 2026 and in Baton Rouge on August 28, 2026, restrained the SEC and Commissioner Sankey directly, but this California order names no conference as a party and so does not carry that protection to the athletes covered here. IMPORTANT LIMITATION ON THIS ENTRY: the court, county, judge, case caption and docket number for this order could not be verified from any public source at the time of this update. State-court eligibility filings are poorly indexed — the College Sports Litigation Tracker itself notes that many state cases cannot be reliably tracked or accessed. What is published here rests on three independent reputable reports (ESPN, CBS Sports and On3) that agree on the substance, the athlete count, the portal dates and the professional-contract provision. Treat the caption as unconfirmed and verify against the order itself before relying on it.

Issue: Whether class-of-2022 athletes shut out of a fifth season can not only be declared eligible but actually get into the transfer portal to find a roster — including athletes who have since signed professional contracts.

Where it stands: Roughly thirty athletes across several sports — sixteen of them football players, plus LSU women's basketball player Amiya Joyner, men's basketball player Rashad King and women's soccer player Jazmin Ferguson — sued the NCAA in Louisiana state court over the same age-based rule at issue in Wisne. On August 19, 2026 Judge William Jorden granted a temporary restraining order that does two things the Colorado injunction pointedly did not: it deems the plaintiffs eligible to compete, and it bars the NCAA from applying its transfer restrictions to them, giving them roughly a week to enter a transfer portal the NCAA had otherwise closed to anyone who missed the prescribed windows. Reporting on the order states that it enjoins both the NCAA's "ghost transfer" rule and its Rule of Restitution — the bylaw that lets the NCAA strip wins, records and revenue after the fact if an injunction is later vacated — which matters because that bylaw is the main residual risk of competing under an order that is still temporary. It also reaches athletes who signed NFL contracts after their college careers ended — among them Dae'Quan Wright (Browns), Wydett Williams (Cardinals), Anthony Hankerson (Seahawks) and Jack Pyburn (Buccaneers) — who may return to college if they are released and if they terminate their contracts and return what they were paid before competing. NFL cutdowns to fifty-three players fall on August 30, 2026. The order is a TRO, not a preliminary injunction: by its terms it runs ten days from issuance — through roughly August 29, 2026 — unless the court extends it. The hearing at which the TRO either converts into a preliminary injunction or falls was initially noticed for August 31, 2026 and is now set for September 3, 2026. Reporting on the order puts the number of named athletes at roughly thirty-three. The Tenth Circuit's August 21, 2026 stay in Wisne does not disturb this order: it is a different court, a different circuit, a different body of law and a different set of plaintiffs, and the stay by its terms reaches only the Colorado class action. The NCAA's senior vice president for external affairs said courts granting relief to "ineligible athletes who already had every opportunity to compete in college" are "failing to appreciate the destabilizing effect their rulings are having on college sports." SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey filed an affidavit in a related East Baton Rouge Parish eligibility case opposing the return of professional athletes, arguing it creates "a competitive disadvantage and fundamental unfairness" to current athletes. The conferences then acted on their own. On August 25, 2026 the SEC's presidents, chancellors and athletic directors voted 16-0 to bar from SEC rosters any athlete who declared for the NFL, NBA or WNBA draft without properly withdrawing, signed a contract with a professional football or basketball team or affiliate, or appeared on a professional roster; a member school that plays such an athlete faces a half-season suspension of its head coach, a fine of half the sport's operating budget, and loss of its vote in conference business. The Big Ten adopted an equivalent policy the same day, and the ACC and Big 12 have been reported as preparing to follow. Athletes reported as squarely in the path of the SEC rule include Dae'Quan Wright, the former Ole Miss tight end released by the Browns, and RJ Luis Jr., the 2025 Big East player of the year who signed with the Jazz and the Celtics without appearing in a regular-season game — both of whom had been reported as targeting LSU. Plaintiffs' counsel Ryan Downton has publicly characterized the conference rules as violating multiple standing court orders, and he did not stop at characterizing them. On Friday, August 28, 2026 Judge Jorden amended his temporary restraining order to add the SEC and Commissioner Greg Sankey as restrained parties, barring the conference from using its new former-professional rule to punish schools, coaches or the covered athletes for doing what the court's own order permits. That is the first time in this litigation that a conference — rather than the NCAA — has been ordered to stand down, and it followed a Dallas County order the day before that did the same thing (its own card, below). Athletes reported as directly affected include former New Orleans Saints defensive tackle Zxavian Harris and former Cleveland Browns tight end Dae'Quan Wright, both committed to LSU, and Tampa Bay Buccaneers edge defender Jack Pyburn. The same day, Judge Jorden signed a show-cause order — the development that now defines this case. It requires the SEC and the NCAA to appear and explain why the penalties attached to their new former-professional rules, which plaintiffs' counsel called "draconian," do not place them in contempt of court and in violation of his earlier order. That converts Thursday's setting from a routine preliminary-injunction hearing into a combined proceeding on both the injunction and contempt. The SEC did not fold. In a statement issued Sunday evening, August 30, 2026, the conference said the order against it and Sankey "is a temporary restraining order, not a final ruling on the merits," that both are "prepared to contest the allegations in the plaintiffs' petition at Thursday morning's hearing and defend the SEC's rights as a voluntary association to fulfill its mission to its member institutions," that "[i]n the meantime, the SEC and Commissioner Sankey will continue to comply with the Court's order," and that after the hearing it "will carefully review the Court's decision and determine the appropriate next steps." Read those two halves together: the SEC is complying now and fighting on Thursday. That statement, made on the record, supersedes the earlier secondhand reporting this page carried that the conference had told counsel it would comply. The hearing is Thursday, September 3, 2026 in Baton Rouge — two days before LSU opens against Clemson on Saturday, September 5, 2026 (7:30 p.m. ET, Tiger Stadium) — and the question is whether the TRO becomes a preliminary injunction or is stayed. One caveat on the order's own term: the TRO was written to run roughly ten days from August 19, and no public source confirms a formal order extending it past that. What is confirmed is that the court has set the September 3 hearing and that the SEC says it is continuing to comply, so the order is being treated by the parties as operative. NFL cutdowns to fifty-three players have now passed — all thirty-two clubs trimmed their rosters by 6 p.m. ET Sunday, August 30, 2026, with more than 1,100 players released, waived or given injury designations — so the pool of released players who could try to use this order is now fixed rather than pending. The hearing went forward in Baton Rouge on Thursday, September 3, 2026, and the first ruling went to the conference. Judge Jorden sustained the SEC's exception of improper cumulation — the Louisiana procedural objection to joining unrelated claims in a single action — agreeing that most of the plaintiffs, now reported at forty-two to forty-four athletes, have no connection to an SEC school and therefore no claim against the conference at all. Only the seven plaintiffs with SEC ties, because they attended an SEC school or are seeking to join one, may continue against the SEC; the rest are left to pursue the NCAA alone. Commissioner Sankey then testified, saying the conference needed to "establish a line between professional and college sports" and maintain "clear accountability standards," and that the SEC acted on its own rather than in concert with the NCAA. His sworn account also corrects a number this page carried from press reports of the August 25 vote: Sankey testified the SEC presidents voted 15-0, with LSU's Wade Rousse abstaining, not 16-0. Reporting from the courtroom states that the judge left his order against the NCAA in place — the association remains barred from declaring the covered former professionals and fifth-year athletes ineligible — and that the contempt question directed to the NCAA remained open. Then, late on the night of September 3, 2026, after a hearing that ran more than nine hours, Judge Jorden granted the preliminary injunction. Reporting identifies the case as Pyburn v. NCAA — named for former LSU linebacker Jack Pyburn, who has since signed with the Kansas City Chiefs and is not returning to college — and puts the plaintiff group at roughly forty-three athletes, including nineteen football players, eleven men's basketball players, five softball players and four women's basketball players. The injunction bars the NCAA from using the age-based eligibility rules to keep the named plaintiffs from competing in 2026-27, and bars the SEC from punishing a member university, coach or administrator for signing, rostering or playing one of the SEC-connected plaintiffs — the penalties the conference adopted August 25, 2026, including the head-coach suspension, the half-budget fine and the loss of conference voting rights. It also restrains LSU itself from taking adverse action against the covered players, which matters if the school later comes under pressure from the conference or the association to bench them. This is a preliminary injunction rather than a temporary restraining order, so it is not measured in days and does not lapse on its own; it stands until the court or a reviewing court says otherwise. Counsel for the NCAA and the SEC said they would appeal, and the SEC has been reported as having done so. Two footnotes from the first day under the order: LSU did not immediately add Dae'Quan Wright and Zxavian Harris to its roster despite the ruling, and the SEC had already filed its own federal suit against LSU in Alabama hours earlier — its own card, below — which puts a state injunction and a requested federal injunction on a collision course. The first of those footnotes has now hardened into the most instructive fact in the case. Facing a Friday, September 4, 2026 deadline to submit an opening-day roster to the conference, LSU turned in 103 players against a 105-man limit and left Wright and Harris off it, leaving two spots deliberately open rather than filling them. Both men remain enrolled at LSU and can be added later; neither dressed for the September 5, 2026 opener against Clemson, and reporting notes that Harris had not practiced and Wright had practiced twice. Head coach Lane Kiffin said publicly that the decision "wasn't easy" and was made for the "big picture of LSU and the LSU football program" given the "uncertainties of what could come by adding them to the roster." Plaintiffs' counsel characterized it as a "measured decision to keep these two young men off the roster for now while preserving a path for them to be added later." Reporting states that LSU is holding those two spots while it awaits resolution of the SEC's appeal of this injunction and of the conference's federal suit in Alabama. So the school that won the order — and that the order also restrains from taking adverse action against these players — chose not to use it while the appellate and federal questions are open. That choice then became final for the fall. On September 8, 2026 — the day the SEC amended its Alabama suit and disclosed a vote on expelling LSU — the school left Wright and Harris off its fall roster and filled its 105-man roster with other players, and President Wade Rousse said LSU had complied with conference rules and called the issue moot. The SEC took expulsion off its agenda, and its September 10, 2026 meeting ended with no sanctions. Counsel for Wright and Harris said they are considering their legal options. The injunction itself has not been reported vacated, and on September 14, 2026 the SEC's first attempt to pause it failed. A three-judge panel of the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal — Judges Penzato, Lanier and Fields — denied the application for a stay and for supervisory writs filed by the SEC and Commissioner Sankey (No. 2026 CW 1195). The panel relied on Article 3612 of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure, under which an appeal does not automatically suspend a preliminary injunction and the decision whether to suspend one rests in the trial court's discretion, and held that "[t]he relators have not shown an abuse of that discretion by the district court." Judge Jorden's injunction therefore remains in force and the district-court case continues. The application was brought by the conference and its commissioner; reporting does not describe a separate stay application by the NCAA. That breaks the run this page has been tracking: the Ohio First District, the Tenth Circuit, the Tennessee Court of Appeals and the Georgia Court of Appeals each granted the stay asked of them, and Louisiana's intermediate appellate court did not. The ruling addresses interim relief only, not the merits of the SEC's appeal, and reporting notes that it does not prevent the conference from seeking further review; no application to the Louisiana Supreme Court had been reported as of this update. Nor does it change the roster facts above: Wright and Harris remain off LSU's fall roster by the school's own choice.

Issue: Whether a conference has a First Amendment right of expressive association that lets it refuse to field competitions against former professional athletes a state court has declared eligible.

Where it stands: Just after midnight on September 3, 2026 — hours before the Baton Rouge hearing in Pyburn — the Southeastern Conference sued its own member institution in federal court in Alabama. The complaint names LSU, its Board of Supervisors, President Wade Rousse, athletics director Verge Ausberry and head football coach Lane Kiffin, and alleges that they waged what the conference calls a "deliberate and coordinated campaign" to recruit former professional football players for the 2026 season, including men who had signed contracts with the Cleveland Browns, the New Orleans Saints and the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. The theory is not antitrust and not contract. It is the First Amendment right of expressive association: the conference argues it is a voluntary association with a constitutional right to decide what it stands for, and that LSU is forcing it to associate its competitions, its brand and its championships with conduct the membership has voted to reject. The SEC asks for preliminary and permanent injunctions barring LSU from violating that right and from deterring, coercing or punishing the conference for exercising it, plus a declaration vindicating its right to disassociate. The case was assigned to United States District Judge Annemarie Carney Axon in Birmingham. No ruling had issued as of this update. The timing is the point: later the same day Judge Jorden entered a preliminary injunction in Baton Rouge forbidding the SEC to penalize a member school for playing these very athletes, so the conference is now asking a federal judge for an order that would run directly against a state injunction already in force. The collision did not come. On September 8, 2026 the SEC amended its complaint to add members of the LSU Board of Supervisors and Louisiana Attorney General Elizabeth Murrill as defendants, and moved for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction barring LSU from blocking a September 10 meeting of the conference's presidents and chancellors or otherwise interfering with the conference's asserted First Amendment rights. The filings disclosed that the purpose of that meeting was a vote on whether to expel LSU, which requires a two-thirds majority. The same day, LSU left Dae'Quan Wright and Zxavian Harris off its fall roster, and President Wade Rousse said the school had complied with conference rules and called the issue moot. The TRO hearing Judge Axon had set for September 9, 2026 was continued at the parties' request and postponed to a date to be determined, and the SEC removed expulsion from the meeting agenda. The September 10 videoconference ended with no sanctions against LSU; the conference said discussions "will continue" as it and its members "work toward an appropriate resolution." The case remains pending, and no ruling has issued.

Issue: Whether a court can stop not only the NCAA but a conference and its commissioner from keeping class-of-2022 athletes with professional experience off a college roster.

Where it stands: On Thursday, August 27, 2026 — two days after the SEC and the Big Ten adopted rules barring athletes with professional experience, and the same day the ACC adopted its own — Dallas County District Judge Martin Hoffman entered a temporary restraining order for a group reported at forty-one athletes. The order names the NCAA, the Southeastern Conference and Commissioner Greg Sankey as restrained parties and bars all three from blocking the plaintiffs' return to college competition in 2026-27 on the basis of transfer-portal rules or time spent on a professional roster, and it directs that the transfer portal be opened for the covered athletes for one week. Reporting describes the order as running fourteen days, which is the default term for a Texas temporary restraining order, and states that the NCAA appeared at a hearing before it issued — so unlike the Arkansas and Texas orders of August 26, 2026 this one was not entered ex parte. Named plaintiffs identified in reporting include Dallas Cowboys receiver Jordan Hudson, Kansas City Chiefs linebacker Wesley Bissainthe, Chiefs receiver Omari Evans, and two WNBA players, Christeen Iwuala and Bailey Maupin; three of the plaintiffs were on NFL rosters when the order issued. Reporting also describes the order as putting the burden on the other side: if the NCAA or the SEC wants to block a covered athlete's return, it must come back to Judge Hoffman and argue for it. This is the first order in the eligibility wave to restrain a conference rather than only the NCAA; Judge Jorden in Baton Rouge amended his own order to do the same thing the following day. On August 30, 2026 the SEC said publicly that it "will continue to comply with the Court's order" in the Louisiana case while contesting it at the September 3 hearing — an on-the-record position that supersedes the earlier secondhand reports of compliance this page carried, and one the conference has not separately stated as to this Dallas order. The order did not lapse. On Friday, September 11, 2026 — the day after the reported fourteen-day term would have run out — Judge Hoffman clarified, narrowed and extended the temporary restraining order, and continued the hearing on a temporary injunction rather than holding it. So the order survives, the case remains on a temporary footing, and the hearing that would convert it into something durable has moved to a date that has not been publicly reported. The word doing the most work in that entry is "narrowed": the docket records that the court cut back the order's scope, but the respect in which it was narrowed — whether it dropped plaintiffs, dropped the transfer-portal provision, or reduced what the SEC and Commissioner Sankey are restrained from doing — is not public. Nobody covered by this order should assume the version protecting them today is the version entered on August 27. IMPORTANT LIMITATION ON THIS ENTRY: the case caption is now reported as Hudson v. NCAA, which matches the lead plaintiff named in the August reporting, but the docket number and district court number still could not be verified from any public source at the time of this update, and neither the text of the September 11 order nor the new hearing date has been published. What appears here rests on the College Sports Litigation Tracker's docket entries together with multiple independent reputable reports (ESPN, NBC Sports and On3) that agree on the judge, the date, the defendants, the athlete count and the portal provision. Reporting also differs on the spelling of one lead plaintiff's name. Verify the current terms against the order itself before relying on it.

Issue: Whether the scattered eligibility suits get centralized before one judge.

Where it stands: The NCAA moved August 1, 2026 to centralize the eligibility actions in the Middle District of Tennessee, where it says most named plaintiffs reside. The Panel docketed the motion as MDL No. 3198 and on August 5, 2026 set a briefing schedule: responses are due August 26, 2026 and the NCAA's reply September 2, 2026. Eight actions are named so far — Wisne, Morton, Fuller, Wiley, Zeigler, Pavia, Boyd and Patterson. Parties in Zeigler jointly moved to stay pending the Panel's decision, and the NCAA filed MDL notices in Patterson and Boyd in early August 2026. On August 14, 2026 the Panel set the motion for argument at its September 24, 2026 hearing session in Chicago — 9:30 a.m. Central, at the Northwestern Pritzker School of Law. On August 19, 2026 the NCAA identified Campbell, Evans and Lorient as additional potential tag-along actions, and on August 20, 2026 it added Deck, Edwards and James, so the pool the Panel could sweep in keeps growing while the motion sits. Responses to the motion were due August 26, 2026, and they do not line up the way the caption suggests. On August 26, 2026 counsel for the Wisne and Campbell plaintiffs filed responses opposing centralization, counsel for the Zeigler plaintiffs filed a response supporting it, and a pro se litigant, Jenna James, filed her own opposition. Counsel for the Fuller, Morton and Patterson plaintiffs filed further oppositions on August 27, 2026. So the athletes' side is split against itself: the plaintiffs behind the nationwide class action want to stay where they are, and at least one plaintiff group is asking to be gathered in with the rest. The NCAA's reply landed on schedule. On September 2, 2026 it filed its reply brief in support of centralization and, with it, a notice naming eight further related actions — Trotter, Ramirez, Tu'akoi, Braham, Martinson, Larry, Jimmori Robinson and Moore. That reply was meant to close briefing three weeks ahead of the hearing, and the pool the Panel could sweep in has roughly doubled from the eight actions named when the motion was filed. Notably, the notice reaches Moore — the successor class action filed in Colorado after the Tenth Circuit stayed Wisne — so the case built to replace the nationwide injunction is itself now a candidate for transfer out of the court that would hear it. Briefing did not stay closed. Having been named in that September 2 notice, the Moore plaintiffs filed their own response opposing centralization on September 8, 2026, so the newly added actions are answering for themselves and the Panel is still taking in oppositions two weeks before argument. The split on the athletes' side has widened with them: counsel for the Wisne, Campbell, Fuller, Morton and Patterson plaintiffs, and now the Moore plaintiffs, oppose centralization, while the Zeigler plaintiffs support it.

Issue: Twenty-four basketball players excluded from a fifth season — pleaded as a state contract claim rather than antitrust.

Where it stands: Preliminary injunction entered July 9, 2026 barring the NCAA from enforcing Bylaw 12.6 and transfer-portal requirements against the plaintiffs, secured by a $200,000 bond. Judge Wagner then denied the NCAA's motion to stay his own injunction, writing that a stay was not warranted and that the NCAA "is subject to the results of its own decisions." The NCAA appealed to the Ohio First District Court of Appeals (No. C2600335) and filed its opening appellant brief on August 10, 2026, along with a reply pressing for a stay and for expedited briefing, argument and decision. On August 11, 2026 that court held it does have jurisdiction over the appeal — rejecting the threshold challenge that would have ended it — but deferred any decision on the stay. On August 17, 2026 the First District granted it, finding the NCAA had "presented a substantial case on the merits and have demonstrated irreparable harm." The July 9 injunction is therefore paused while the appeal proceeds. The athletes' appellee brief is due September 9, 2026 and an optional reply September 19, 2026; on August 19, 2026 the court set oral argument for September 22, 2026. Discovery continues below.

Issue: Nineteen class-of-2022 basketball players seeking a fifth season — the second state-court group order to be stayed on appeal.

Where it stands: The complaint was filed July 6, 2026 by the Texas Trial Group on behalf of nineteen Division I basketball players from the high school class of 2022, led by Jalen Washington, who had played the prior season at Vanderbilt. On July 31, 2026 Judge I'Ashea Myles granted temporary injunctive relief, ordering that the NCAA recognize the plaintiffs as eligible for the 2026-27 season and not deny or impede their recruitment, transfer or certification on the basis of the challenged eligibility determination. That order did what many others did not — it reached recruitment and transfer, not just eligibility — and Washington used it, transferring to Tennessee in early August 2026. The NCAA appealed and moved for a stay. On August 26, 2026 the Tennessee Court of Appeals granted it, saying it had weighed the relevant factors and in particular the NCAA's likelihood of success on the merits. The July 31 injunction is therefore paused while the appeal proceeds, and the nineteen plaintiffs no longer have its benefit. Like the athletes in Borovicanin, these plaintiffs had a second basis for playing while the nationwide Wisne injunction was in force; the Tenth Circuit stayed that on August 21, 2026, five days before this one, so both supports were gone by the time this order issued. Merits briefing on the appeal has not been publicly calendared.

Issue: Class-of-2022 Division I men's basketball players seeking a fifth season on the theory that the NCAA applied its eligibility rules arbitrarily to athletes caught between the old and new systems — the fourth athlete injunction to be stayed on appeal.

Where it stands: In early August 2026 a Cobb County, Georgia state judge granted an interlocutory injunction clearing a group of Division I men's basketball players to compete in 2026-27 and barring the NCAA from penalizing schools or coaches who roster them, on a finding that the NCAA applied its eligibility rules arbitrarily and inconsistently to athletes caught between the old and new systems. Plaintiffs identified in reporting include RJ Godfrey (Arizona), Chauncey Wiggins (Gonzaga), JaMichael Stillwell (Texas Tech), Dillon Hunter (Clemson) and Dan Skillings (Grand Canyon). Reporting put the group at sixteen when the injunction issued and at roughly thirty since; the current count could not be confirmed. The NCAA filed a notice of intent to appeal on August 18, 2026. On September 9, 2026 the Georgia Court of Appeals docketed the appeal and granted the NCAA's motion to stay the injunction pending appeal. The order gives no reasons. Reporting states that while the stay stands, the plaintiffs are ineligible to practice or compete. The stay does not reverse the injunction: the appeal on the merits continues, and it has not been calendared. Some of these players, Godfrey among them, were also members of the Wisne class, but the Tenth Circuit has stayed that injunction since August 21, 2026, so neither basis for their eligibility is currently in effect.

Issue: Whether athletes can preliminarily enjoin the five-year and JUCO eligibility rules — and what an athlete actually has to prove to get one.

Where it stands: Four federal circuits have now reversed or vacated athlete injunctions, and all four give the same two-part answer: eligibility rules are commercial and reachable under the Sherman Act, but an athlete must carry a real rule-of-reason burden with market evidence, not a "quick look." The Ninth Circuit joined that line on September 9, 2026 in Blythe v. NCAA, No. 26-1106, a published opinion by Judge Gabriel P. Sanchez, joined by District Judge David A. Ezra of the District of Hawaii sitting by designation, with Judge Mark J. Bennett concurring. The panel had already vacated the injunction by order on April 8, 2026; this opinion supplies the rationale, and the disposition is a single word: "VACATED." Two holdings matter. First, the Five-Year Rule is a commercial restraint subject to the Sherman Act — under Alston, non-compensation eligibility rules are not immune from antitrust scrutiny so long as they affect commerce. Judge Bennett concurred in the merits analysis and in vacatur but would not have reached that question at all. Second, and this is the half that decides cases, the panel held the district court erred in defining the relevant market as the "Division I collegiate baseball labor market" because it leaned on Alston and on other district courts' preliminary-injunction orders rather than on evidence. Alston's market, the panel wrote, was cabined to "athletic services in men's and women's Division I basketball and FBS football" and "in no way discussed college baseball or its markets." Quoting the Third and Fourth Circuits, the panel repeated that "[r]eliance on a previously accepted market, without inspection of current market realities, is antithetical to antitrust legal principles," and it adopted the Fourth Circuit's list of questions a proper market definition would have to answer: whether the market is all of college football or only Division I, whether Division II, Division III and junior-college programs are reasonable substitutes, how revenue sharing changes recruitment, and whether Division I teams compete with professional teams for players. Given what it called the "dearth of evidence of anticompetitive effects," the court held Blythe had not shown a likelihood of success. The same panel decided a companion case the same day. In Braham v. NCAA, Nos. 25-5040 and 25-5962, it dismissed the NCAA's consolidated appeals from two athlete injunctions as moot — the injunctions had expired and the players' collegiate careers were over, so no effective relief could be granted — and held the NCAA had not met its burden to invoke the exception for disputes capable of repetition yet evading review. It also rejected the NCAA's argument that the appeals stayed alive because the injunctions still barred Rule of Restitution enforcement against the nonparty schools the athletes had played for, holding that once the season ended those expired injunctions "do not extend indefinitely to nonparties who might be subject to a Rule of Restitution action by the NCAA." Having dismissed, the panel vacated both district courts' orders under the doctrine of Munsingwear vacatur. Blythe was in circulation within forty-eight hours: the Wisne plaintiffs filed a notice of supplemental authority putting it before the Tenth Circuit on September 11, 2026, the court in Ramirez and Tu'akoi ordered briefing on its impact on September 10, 2026, and the NCAA filed its own notice of supplemental authority in Helms on September 11, 2026. A Sixth Circuit appeal in Zeigler is still pending.

Issue: Fifth-season claims under the four-seasons limit.

Where it stands: Patterson denied a preliminary injunction on January 15, 2026, holding the players showed harm to themselves but not to the market — and that the House cap and roster limits undercut their output theory. Plaintiffs filed renewed preliminary-injunction motions in July 2026 (Dkt. 107, 116), and on August 10, 2026 Chief Judge Campbell stayed the NCAA's deadline to respond to them pending further order, directing the parties to report on what the Tenth Circuit and the District of Colorado do in Wisne. The Tenth Circuit has now acted — it stayed the Wisne injunction on August 21, 2026 — so the event this court was waiting to hear about has happened, and it went the NCAA's way. The pause is now over: on September 8, 2026 the court restarted briefing on the renewed preliminary-injunction motions, so motions that had been frozen since August 10 are live again and will be decided on their own record rather than on whatever the Tenth Circuit does next. The discovery around them has turned contentious — the same day, the University of South Carolina and the University of Texas at Austin each filed new actions seeking to quash subpoenas the plaintiffs had served on them, which puts two non-party member schools in court over what they must hand over about how eligibility decisions actually get made. A third followed on September 9, 2026, when Texas A&M filed its own action to quash. Three member schools are now separately resisting the same discovery. Zeigler denied relief June 12, 2025; the appeal is pending, and on August 4, 2026 the Zeigler plaintiffs filed an amended complaint while the parties jointly moved to stay pending the MDL decision. On August 26, 2026 Zeigler's counsel went further and filed a brief supporting the NCAA's motion to centralize the eligibility cases — a plaintiff group affirmatively asking to be gathered in with the rest.

Issue: Individual and class challenges to the five-year rule, the JUCO-counting rule, and the new age-based model.

Where it stands: Results are split and moving weekly. Injunctions have issued in Blythe (Feb. 20, 2026), Kromah and Ondekane (July 1, 2026), and in Washington (July 31, 2026), which now has its own card above after the Tennessee Court of Appeals stayed it on August 26, 2026; in Godfrey, a Cobb County, Georgia state judge granted an interlocutory injunction in early August 2026 clearing sixteen Division I men's basketball players — including former Clemson and Georgia forward RJ Godfrey, former UCF forward Jamichael Stillwell and former Georgia Tech guard Lamar Washington — to compete in 2026-27 and barring the NCAA from penalizing schools or coaches who roster them, on a finding that the NCAA applied its eligibility rules arbitrarily and inconsistently to athletes caught between the old and new systems; Godfrey signed with Arizona, and the NCAA filed a notice of intent to appeal that injunction on August 18, 2026, and on September 9, 2026 the Georgia Court of Appeals stayed it pending appeal — it now has its own card above; in Poteat, a Pennsylvania state court had ordered the NCAA to decide a junior-college waiver by noon on August 3, 2026, the NCAA let that deadline pass, and on August 14, 2026 the court modified its injunction to order that the player be allowed to compete in 2026-27 — he committed to a new school days later; TROs and injunctions have been denied elsewhere, including Cruz, which was transferred to the Northern District of California in early August 2026 where the new judge denied an ex parte TRO and set a briefing schedule; the NCAA filed its opposition there August 9, 2026, and on August 11, 2026 the court stayed the case after both sides agreed a stay was warranted because Cruz falls inside the Wisne class. New complaints continue to be filed. Lorient was filed August 3, 2026. In Evans, an NC State defensive lineman denied a waiver sued August 7, 2026 in the Eastern District of North Carolina on Sherman Act, third-party-beneficiary and good-faith theories, and on August 10, 2026 Judge Louise W. Flanagan granted a temporary restraining order without notice and without bond, ordering the NCAA to treat him as immediately eligible for fourteen days through August 24, 2026 unless extended, with an administrative conference August 18 to set the preliminary-injunction schedule; the NCAA has since named Evans as a potential tag-along in the MDL petition. Briefing also continues in Morton and Larry, where plaintiffs filed notice of the Wisne ruling as supplemental authority. On August 12, 2026 a group of class-of-2022 athletes across basketball, football and baseball — including Missouri forward Mark Mitchell and two Louisville football players — sued the NCAA in Jefferson Circuit Court in Kentucky (Judge Brian C. Edwards), aiming squarely at the gap Wisne left open: they ask not only for a fifth season but for an order barring the NCAA from keeping them off any Division I roster because they never entered the transfer portal, and for the portal to be opened for them through August 18, 2026. A hearing set for August 13 was moved to August 14, 2026, when Judge Edwards heard roughly an hour of argument. He declined to grant immediate temporary relief opening the portal, and instead gave both sides until Tuesday, August 18, 2026 to file supplemental written argument, saying he expects to rule by the end of that week. The NCAA argued the Kentucky court should not reach the dispute at all because these athletes are already covered by the Colorado federal injunction; plaintiffs answered that their claims sound in contract rather than antitrust and that the Wisne relief is not enough to get them onto a roster. Supplemental briefing closed August 18, 2026 — the very date through which these athletes had asked to have the portal opened, which passed with no order. Judge Edwards then ruled on Friday, August 21, 2026, hours after the Tenth Circuit stayed Wisne: he granted a temporary restraining order for Mark Mitchell and twelve other athletes and ordered the transfer portal opened for them for one week, to roughly August 28, 2026. Mitchell, who had signed with the Denver Nuggets after his college eligibility expired, entered the portal the same day. The NCAA had argued the Kentucky court should not reach the dispute because these athletes were already covered by the Colorado federal injunction; that argument lost most of its force the morning the Tenth Circuit paused that injunction. Three more actions surfaced in the same stretch: an athlete sued August 18, 2026 in the Eastern District of New York (Edwards v. NCAA, No. 26-cv-05047) seeking 2026-27 eligibility, and on August 19, 2026 that court ordered the NCAA to show cause why an injunction should not issue and set a briefing schedule; on August 20, 2026 plaintiff Pearce dismissed a California filing and refiled in the District of Colorado with co-plaintiff Moore (No. 1:26-cv-03837); and on August 20, 2026 the plaintiff in Tettamble noticed a hearing on his TRO and preliminary-injunction motion in St. Louis Circuit Court in Missouri. The first business day after the Tenth Circuit stay produced two refusals of emergency relief. On August 24, 2026, in Koonin v. NCAA, No. ESX-C-000201-26 — a contract case filed August 14, 2026 — the Superior Court of New Jersey, Essex County (Judge Cynthia D. Santomauro) dismissed every plaintiff except Jacob Koonin for lack of personal jurisdiction, denied Koonin's application for temporary restraints, and granted an order to show cause on a preliminary injunction with expedited briefing. The same day, in Deck v. NCAA, No. 26-cv-02765 (N.D. Tex.) — filed August 18, 2026 by a former SMU women's basketball player who had been covered by the Wisne class and was then told SMU would not keep her on its roster while the portal was closed — the court denied an ex parte temporary restraining order, ordered service on the NCAA and SMU, and set a preliminary-injunction briefing schedule. Neither is a merits ruling, but both declined to act on an emergency footing. Cruz went the other way: on August 22, 2026, with the Wisne injunction stayed, the court granted the plaintiff's motion to reinstate the preliminary-injunction motion that had been shelved on the premise that he was already covered by the class, set a reply deadline, and said it would consider the motion on an expedited basis. Ramirez v. NCAA, an antitrust challenge to a waiver denial filed August 21, 2026 with a TRO and preliminary-injunction motion, is running against a game clock: the court has indicated it intends to rule before Idaho State's opening game on August 29, 2026, and on August 24, 2026 it entered an order confirming that intention, setting the NCAA's response deadline and a preliminary-injunction briefing schedule. The following two days cut both ways. On August 26, 2026 the Eastern District of New York denied the motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction in Edwards, with leave to amend — the show-cause order entered a week earlier did not produce relief. The same day, two state courts granted ex parte restraining orders. In Wooden v. NCAA, No. 72CV-26-4118, filed that morning in the Circuit Court of Washington County, Arkansas, Judge Doug Martin granted an ex parte temporary restraining order to a group of class-of-2022 athletes led by former Auburn safety Caleb Wooden, who pleaded state-law theories rather than antitrust — unconscionable and discriminatory conduct contrary to Arkansas public policy, breach of the NCAA bylaws as third-party beneficiaries, promissory estoppel and tortious interference — and sought protection against the Rule of Restitution. The court found a reasonable probability of success resting in part on the athletes' reliance on the now-stayed nationwide Wisne injunction, which is a theory the stay created rather than foreclosed. In Warren v. NCAA, No. 26-002488-CV-272 (272nd Judicial District Court, Brazos County, Texas), Judge John Brick granted an ex parte temporary restraining order at 9:45 a.m. ordering the NCAA to declare Texas A&M guard Bryson Warren eligible to play at Texas A&M or any other member institution in 2026-27, barring enforcement of the Rule of Restitution against Warren or the school, and setting a hearing for September 4, 2026; Warren had spent three seasons in the NBA G League and had his waiver denied the week before. In Evans, the Eastern District of North Carolina is reported to have extended the August 10 restraining order past its original August 24 expiry through August 29, 2026, covering NC State's opener, with preliminary-injunction briefing running into September. Overhanging all of it: on August 25, 2026 the SEC and the Big Ten each barred athletes with professional experience from their member-school rosters, which reaches athletes holding court orders — Warren's G League seasons put him squarely inside the SEC rule the day after he won his TRO. The last two days of August produced more denials than grants. On August 27, 2026 the NCAA moved to stay the Kromah preliminary injunction pending appeal, filed opposition briefs against the preliminary-injunction motions in Evans and in Dalley, and the Trotter plaintiffs filed a renewed preliminary-injunction motion. On August 28, 2026 the court in Cruz — which had reinstated the motion a week earlier once the Wisne stay removed the premise for shelving it — denied the preliminary injunction outright; the court in Fuller heard argument and denied a renewed temporary restraining order from the bench; and in Pavia the court let plaintiff Jaden Mosley dismiss himself without prejudice and ordered the remaining plaintiffs to answer the NCAA's contentions that some of them are eligible under the new rule anyway and that others have already used up the eligibility the new rule allows. Relief did issue in two matters that day: the court in McQuaide granted a preliminary injunction against the Patriot League — notable because the restrained party is a conference, not the NCAA — and in the newly filed Tu'akoi case the court granted the plaintiff's motion and consolidated briefing and argument on the Tu'akoi and Ramirez preliminary-injunction motions on a set schedule. That consolidation is worth noting on its own terms: Ramirez was the case in which the court had said it intended to rule before Idaho State's August 29, 2026 opener, and the schedule it actually entered pushes the decision past that game. New filings also kept coming — amended complaints with preliminary-injunction and class-certification motions in Moore, an amended complaint plus an expedited briefing schedule and hearing on an emergency temporary restraining order in James, and a hearing set in Steen. The last day of August and the first day of September kept the split going in both directions. On August 31, 2026 the court in Boyd denied the NCAA's motion to dismiss the amended complaint, letting that case proceed; the plaintiff in Webb amended his petition to add the University of Missouri as a defendant and moved for a temporary restraining order; the NCAA filed responses opposing the preliminary-injunction motions in Ramirez, Tu'akoi and Iwuchukwu; the NCAA filed a clarifying notice in Morton about the scope of the House settlement bar; two plaintiffs dismissed themselves from Moore; and a court granted a temporary restraining order in Tice and Monroe and set a preliminary-injunction hearing. On September 1, 2026 a court granted a temporary restraining order in Tettamble; the court in Dalley signaled that an order denying the preliminary injunction would issue within ten days; the parties in Wooden stipulated to move the preliminary-injunction hearing back a week and extend the restraining order with it; the court in Jimmori Robinson granted the NCAA's motion to dismiss in part, knocking out the per se antitrust theory while leaving the rest of the case alive; the Lorient plaintiffs amended to add two plaintiffs and moved for a preliminary injunction; the Trotter plaintiffs filed their reply in support of a preliminary injunction; and a new action, Helms, was filed with a temporary restraining order and preliminary-injunction motion attached. Note the caption trap in that list: Jimmori Robinson is a trial-court eligibility case and has nothing to do with Robinson v. NCAA, No. 25-2003, the Fourth Circuit appeal the NCAA won on the appellate card above. The week of September 4 through 8, 2026 added four more cases and held the same split. Three drew immediate relief. Daley, filed September 4, 2026 on contract theories for four-year athletes out of the high-school class of 2022, drew a temporary restraining order the day it was filed. Sane, filed the same day and aimed at the NCAA's professional-league rule on contract grounds, drew a restraining order and a preliminary-injunction hearing date. And in Pratt, filed September 4, 2026 on the same class-of-2022 theory, the parties did something no other case on this card has produced: they stipulated. The court entered their agreement temporarily allowing Pratt to compete during 2026-27 while the preliminary-injunction motion is briefed, and the plaintiff filed a further memorandum in support on September 8, 2026. Council refiled in New York on September 8, 2026 — a contract challenge to the junior-college counting rule, with a restraining-order motion and an order to show cause. The NCAA pushed back harder elsewhere: it filed a response opposing the restraining-order and preliminary-injunction motions in Helms on September 8, 2026, having been given a briefing schedule there on September 3; and in James the court held a hearing on September 8, 2026 and took the matter under advisement, allowing the NCAA to file a surreply. Two matters came off the emergency track altogether. In Evans the court decided on September 4, 2026 to rule on the preliminary-injunction motion on the papers and dispensed with the hearing it had set, so that decision is pending with no argument to come. In Bewley the court set a date for the parties to report on the status of settlement talks — the first settlement posture to surface anywhere in this docket. One case left the docket entirely: on September 8, 2026 the Koonin plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal, ending the New Jersey action that had already lost every plaintiff but one on personal jurisdiction. The source for this stretch of docket movement is the College Sports Litigation Tracker, which does not identify the court for most of these entries; the courts are therefore not restated here. September 9, 2026 closed out three matters on this card. In Trotter v. NCAA, No. 3:26-cv-523 (S.D. W. Va.), Judge Robert C. Chambers issued the written opinion and order denying the preliminary injunction he had announced from the bench on September 2. The plaintiffs are fourteen class-of-2022 athletes from Marshall University and Ohio University, in football, baseball, soccer, tennis, women's basketball, softball, cross-country and track, who sought to compete in 2026-27. In Evans — the NC State defensive lineman whose preliminary-injunction motion was to be decided on the papers — the court entered an order tentatively dismissing the case after the NCAA told it the parties had reached a settlement allowing Evans to play. Reporting describes the resolution as the NCAA granting the waiver it had denied on July 24, 2026, which clears him for the rest of the season. And in Gayle, the NCAA filed its opposition to the preliminary-injunction motion ahead of the hearing set for September 17, 2026. Separately, the Georgia group order in Godfrey was stayed on appeal the same day and now has its own card above. That same September 9 brought NCAA oppositions to the preliminary-injunction motions in Wooden, Council and Pratt, a new action by Texas A&M to quash a plaintiffs' subpoena in Patterson, and a notice in Baylor University v. Boston University that those parties had settled. Two matters drew relief that day. The court in Kaufman-Renn granted a temporary restraining order giving provisional eligibility while the preliminary-injunction motion remains pending. And in Harris the court split the group, granting temporary restraining relief to Harris, Mahdi, Hall, Moon and Ma'afu, denying it to the remaining nine plaintiffs, and setting a preliminary-injunction hearing. A new appellate front opened in South Carolina, where the NCAA filed notice that it will appeal the temporary injunction granted to Tristan Smith to the South Carolina Court of Appeals — a fifth appellate court asked to review an athlete order. The next two days ran the same way. Ogbole filed on September 9, 2026 with a motion for an order to show cause, and on September 10 the court issued that show-cause order without granting the requested restraining order and set a hearing on interim relief. The NCAA moved to dismiss Elliott for failure to state a claim; the plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their restraining-order motion in Helms; the NCAA filed a surreply in James rebutting the plaintiff's expert declaration; and the hearing in Tettamble was rescheduled. September 11, 2026 produced a denial and a new filing: the court in Steen issued an opinion and order denying the motion for temporary and preliminary injunction, Aberdeen filed a complaint and a motion for a temporary injunction, and the NCAA filed its opposition to the preliminary-injunction motion in Tice. Running underneath all of it is the Ninth Circuit's September 9 decision in Blythe, which reached these dockets immediately — the court in Ramirez and Tu'akoi ordered briefing on September 10, 2026 on what Blythe means for those cases, and the NCAA filed a notice of supplemental authority in Helms on September 11, 2026. The source for this stretch of docket movement is again the College Sports Litigation Tracker, which does not identify the court for most of these entries; the courts are therefore not restated here. The next stretch produced the most durable individual order on this card. On September 14, 2026, in Wooden v. NCAA, No. 72CV-26-4118, Washington County Circuit Judge Doug Martin issued an opinion and order granting a preliminary injunction to Arkansas football players Caleb Wooden and Sean Williams, following the hearing the parties had moved to September 9 by stipulation. The injunction bars the NCAA from enforcing against them Bylaw 12.6 — the age-based rule adopted this summer, which extends a fifth season to the high-school class of 2023 and later but not to the class of 2022 — and from enforcing the Rule of Restitution. The court found a reasonable probability of success on the players' claim as third-party beneficiaries and found the NCAA's eligibility framework inconsistent with the fairness commitments the association makes. It also gave legal weight to the athletes' reliance on the now-stayed Wisne injunction, writing that "[t]he court cannot treat the period from July 31 through August 21 as though it did not occur." Wooden and Williams had played in Arkansas's season opener under the August 26 restraining order. No appeal had been reported as of this update. Also in that stretch, the Fuller plaintiff filed an emergency motion for a preliminary injunction on September 11, 2026, after the court denied a renewed restraining order from the bench on August 28.

Issue: Whether Division I athletes can be employees entitled to minimum wage under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Where it stands: The Third Circuit held on July 11, 2024 that athletes are not categorically barred from employee status and set a four-part economic-realities test, then remanded. The case remains pending in the district court.

Issue: Title IX and related claims over the NCAA's former transgender-participation policy.

Where it stands: Most claims were dismissed September 25, 2025. A narrow Title IX claim survived and is in targeted discovery on whether the NCAA is a recipient of federal financial assistance. Plaintiffs point to the Supreme Court's June 30, 2026 decision in West Virginia v. B.P.J.

Issue: Failure to warn about and protect against the long-term effects of repetitive head trauma.

Where it stands: Hundreds of personal-injury and wrongful-death suits remain pending, with cases continuing to consolidate into the MDL. In Davis a Dallas County jury awarded $30 million compensatory damages on April 27, 2026 and $110 million punitive damages on May 4, 2026.

Issue: The ban on discussing NIL during recruiting, and the year-in-residence penalty on multi-time transfers.

Where it stands: In Tennessee — joined by New York, Florida, Virginia and the District of Columbia — the preliminary injunction was made permanent by consent judgment approved March 21, 2025. The NCAA may not enforce its NIL-recruiting ban and must publish proposed NIL rules at least 30 days before any vote for five years. In Ohio, brought by seven states, the court enjoined the multi-transfer eligibility rule and sharply criticized the NCAA's Rule of Restitution.