Background
Cortez Braham Jr. and Tatuo Martinson began their college football careers at junior colleges in 2019 and later transferred to NCAA Division I schools. Each had used the five years of collegiate enrollment allowed under the NCAA’s Five-Year Rule, which counts enrollment and seasons at junior colleges as well as NCAA institutions.
In summer 2025, the players separately sued the NCAA in the District of Nevada under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. They sought permission to compete during a sixth year, alleging that the Five-Year Rule was anticompetitive. The district courts granted preliminary injunctions barring enforcement of the rule against the players and also barring use of the NCAA’s Rule of Restitution against their schools. Both players competed in the completed 2025 season, and the NCAA appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Ninth Circuit dismissed the consolidated appeals as moot. The preliminary injunctions expired with the end of the 2025 football season, and both players’ collegiate football careers had ended. Thus, the court could not grant the NCAA effective relief.
The NCAA did not establish that the capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception applied. Its assertion that it could face similar suits from other athletes was insufficient because the exception requires a reasonable expectation that the same parties will again face the same challenged action. The court also vacated the district courts’ injunction orders under Munsingwear vacatur.
Key Takeaways
- An appeal from an expired preliminary injunction is moot when no effective relief remains available.
- A defendant cannot invoke the capable-of-repetition exception solely by pointing to possible future suits from nonparties.
- When mootness prevents appellate review, the Ninth Circuit may vacate the underlying orders under Munsingwear.
Why It Matters
The decision leaves unresolved the merits of the players’ Sherman Act challenge to the NCAA’s Five-Year Rule. It clarifies that short-lived sports-eligibility injunctions will not necessarily qualify for mootness review merely because similar eligibility disputes may arise involving other athletes.