President Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland, the Chief Judge of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, to Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court could significantly impact legal challenges over NCAA amateurism rules. This is particularly true for the case brought by Ed O’Bannon and other players over the use of Division I men’s basketball and football players’ names, images and likenesses in broadcasts and video games.
O’Bannon has defeated the NCAA twice, first in the US District Court for the Northern District of California in 2014 and second in the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in 2015. O’Bannon’s victory was historic in that he proved that certain NCAA amateurism rules violate antitrust law. But the victory creates only modest impact: it compels the NCAA to allow colleges to provide student athletes with up to the cost of attendance, a step that the NCAA had already planned to take. Expectations by some for an O’Bannon ruling that would require schools to compensate student-athletes through licensing agreements or other arrangements did not materialize.
Last week attorneys representing O’Bannon petitioned the US Supreme Courtto hear the case in hopes of obtaining a more consequential victory. If the Supreme Court—which only agrees to hear only about 1% of petitions—agrees to hear O’Bannon’s case, Garland could become the decisive swing vote. With the death of Antonin Scalia, the Court is ideologically divided between four Justices (Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito) who are generally regarded as conservative and four justices (Associate Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan) who are generally regarded as liberal. While positions on amateurism rules do not neatly conform to conservative/liberal labels, Garland’s somewhat left-of-center record, particularly on union-management matters, could favor O’Bannon. On the other hand, Garland’s reputation for restraint in applying antitrust law could be good news for the NCAA.
As a Supreme Court Justice, Garland might also hear the case brought by Martin Jenkins, who is represented by Jeffrey Kessler and David Greenspan—the same attorneys representing Tom Brady in the Deflategate litigation. Jenkins and several other players contend that NCAA rules requiring colleges to cap the value of athletic scholarships to tuition, room, board, books and fees violate antitrust law. The Jenkins case is currently before US District Judge Claudia Wilken and one day might work its way to the Supreme Court.
Full content: Sports Illustrated
Want more news? Subscribe to CPI’s free daily newsletter for more headlines and updates on antitrust developments around the world.
Featured News
DirecTV and Disney Resolve Dispute, Restore Programming for Subscribers
Sep 15, 2024 by
CPI
UK Antitrust Authority Raises Concerns Over Vodafone-Three Merger
Sep 15, 2024 by
CPI
Brazilian Supreme Court Lifts Freeze on Starlink Accounts, Transfers $3.3 Million to National Treasury
Sep 15, 2024 by
CPI
Steptoe Expands Antitrust Practice with Key London Hire
Sep 15, 2024 by
CPI
Instant Ad Auctions at the Heart of Google’s Federal Monopoly Case
Sep 15, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Canada & Mexico
Sep 3, 2024 by
CPI
Competitive Convergence: Mexico’s 30-Year Quest for Antitrust Parity with its Northern Neighbor
Sep 3, 2024 by
Francisco Javier Núñez Melgoza
Competition and Digital Markets in North America: A Comparative Study of Antitrust Investigations in Mexico and the United States
Sep 3, 2024 by
Julio Garcia
Recent Antitrust Development in Mexico: COFECE’s Preliminary Report on Amazon and Mercado Libre
Sep 3, 2024 by
Alejandra Palacios Prieto
The Cost of Making COFECE Disappear
Sep 3, 2024 by
Mateo Fernández