The NCAA moved late Sunday to stay a federal judge's nationwide injunction that allows a potential extra year of eligibility for college athletes who completed high school in 2022, asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit to act before the injunction takes full effect.
U.S. District Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney granted the injunction and certified a nationwide class of Division I athletes last Friday. Those athletes began college play in 2022-23, completed four years of eligibility by this past spring and are currently barred from a fifth season.
The NCAA argues that if the injunction stands, thousands of college athletes—including freshmen—will lose roster spots. Division I roster numbers are fixed, meaning one athlete taking a slot displaces another, an outcome the association said could trigger new lawsuits.
Displacement is a particular problem in August as the fall semester approaches. Athletes bumped from rosters could struggle to find another school with both an athletic opportunity and a suitable academic program, the NCAA's brief said.
The class certified by Judge Sweeney stems from Wisne et al. v. NCAA, brought by 12 men's and women's athletes from various sports. The plaintiffs have already completed college—at least one has turned professional—and are seeking to return for additional NIL and revenue-sharing opportunities.
Judge Sweeney's decision to certify the class in a matter of weeks drew attention; class certification often takes years. Ed O'Bannon's class action against the NCAA required more than four years for certification. Judge Sweeney said the rapid timeline was necessary given the impending start of the school year and roster finalization deadlines.
The NCAA's legal team—Andrea Ahn Wechter and Ben D. Kappelman of Dorsey Whitney, Rakesh N. Kilaru of Wilkinson Stekloff, and David J. Zeitlin of Holland & Knight—argued in the brief that the elements required for a stay are clear. Obtaining a stay from the same judge who issued the injunction is typically difficult for defendants.
The NCAA contends it is most likely to prevail on the merits, despite Judge Sweeney's initial ruling for the plaintiff athletes. The association said the athletes are challenging the application of the eligibility system—not the system itself, which allows up to five years of play. That distinction is central to its appeal.
In June, after the 2025-26 academic year concluded, the NCAA and its member institutions amended eligibility rules to bar athletes who had completed four years and finished college from returning. The NCAA's position is that allowing them back would take roster spots and athletic scholarships from incoming freshmen and transfers.
The NCAA cited the 10th Circuit's Christy Sports decision as controlling precedent supporting its stance on appeal.
Judge Sweeney ruled Monday that the plaintiff athletes have until Thursday to file a reply brief to the NCAA's emergency motion, with the NCAA having until the following Monday to respond.
