Story by
NCAA to appeal Brendan Sorsby injunction. What it means and how it can win
- Story by
- NCAA to appeal Brendan Sorsby injunction. What it means and how it can win
The NCAA will appeal a Texas judge's decision to grant Texas Tech quarterback Brendan Sorsby temporary injunctive relief in Sorsby's legal battle for his collegiate eligibility.
The NCAA filed its formal appeal late-afternoon on Monday, June 8, in the Lubbock County, Texas, district court. College athletics' governing body also requested an accelerated appeal.
Advertisement
"This is an accelerated appeal but does not involve parental termination, child protection, or child/adult status to stand trial. NCAA appeals to the Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas sitting in Amarillo, Texas," the NCAA said in its legal filing, which was obtained by USA TODAY Sports.
Earlier Monday, Ken Curry, a retired judge in Texas appointed to hear Sorsby's case in Lubbock County District Court, granted Sorsby's request for a temporary injunction – a move that clears the path for Sorsby to play this fall and temporarily overrides the NCAA's lifetime banishment of Sorsby for his admitted gambling on his own team.
A court date for the full case of Sorsby vs. NCAA is not scheduled until Feb. 8, 2027, as revealed in court documents -- a date that arrives exactly two weeks after the college football season concludes with the College Football Playoff championship game.
Texas Tech quarterback Brendan Sorsby runs with the ball during the team's spring game, Friday, April 17, 2026, at Jones AT&T Stadium.
The NCAA had ruled Sorsby permanently ineligible and Monday morning blasted the Texas court's decision via statement obtained by USA TODAY Sports.
Advertisement
"The NCAA strongly disagrees with the court's ruling in this case and is deeply concerned about the damaging, far-reaching and broadly destabilizing ramifications of this outcome — which undermines and corrupts the integrity of sports," the NCAA in an organizational statement posted to X (formerly Twitter). "The NCAA is committed to supporting student-athlete mental health but must continue to aggressively defend against actions that defraud college athletics and threaten competitive integrity, such as betting on one's own sport."
Curry's initial ruling prompted West Coast-based attorney Bradford Auerbach, who's negotiated deals with the NFL, NBA, International Olympic Committee, ESPN and other entities, to immediately wonder about the potential for widespread abuse.
"The NCAA has been under fire on so many different levels," said Auerbach, who commended Sorsby's decision to seek treatment and advocated for second chances for addicts. "If you pull the lens back on sports gambling on the larger picture, Polymarket and these other predictive market betting things, we would have some real issues as a society to deal with. ... I just think there's a whole ton of other stuff that we're never going to see and it's just really going to be a bad, bad thing.
"So, I don't like the decision and I think the judge was really stretching to make a point and give this guy, yes, a second chance. But, I think he could have been given a second chance with a little more reflection or understanding of the implications of now seemingly opening the floodgates for others to follow."
Advertisement
Sorsby's legal team, headlined by attorney Jeffrey Kessler, proposed to have the quarterback – who admitted to tens of thousands of bets, including dozens on his own Indiana Hoosiers football team in 2022-22 – sit out two games via suspension, as well as continue with other compliance-related elements of their plan.
"This decision is only a preliminary ruling and is subject to appeal. Unless it is overturned, the injunction preserves Sorsby's opportunity to compete this fall while the underlying case proceeds and allows him to continue preparing for a potential NFL career," Kathleen Dion, chair for the law firm Robinson+Cole's education industry team and who specializes in "dispute resolution advice to colleges and universities," told USA TODAY Sports. "For the NCAA, the ruling raises questions about the extent to which courts may review and potentially limit the enforcement of eligibility and competitive-integrity rules in individual cases.
"It is also important to recognize that this is one state trial court decision, not a final decision on the merits, and thus its precedential value may be limited. While the court found that Sorsby demonstrated a probable right to the relief that he seeks on his breach of contract and other claims, which is a necessary element for obtaining a temporary injunction — the order does not appear to provide a detailed explanation of the court's reasoning on that issue. As a result, many of the legal questions raised by the case are likely to remain the subject of further litigation and possible appellate review."
Additional attorneys with player-based eligibility experience echoed similar sentiments to USA TODAY Sports.
Advertisement
"It is a preliminary injunction and not a final order," Darren Heitner, noted sports attorney who teaches NIL at Miami and who routinely represents athletes in cases involving the NCAA told Brent Schrotenboer of USA TODAY Sports via email. "It does not necessarily extend to other courts, but can serve as persuasive authority unless/until it is overturned on appeal.
"The merits were considered as part of the analysis; if the judge had thought there was not a substantial likelihood of success on the merits then it would not have been granted."
Kevin Paule, an attorney who has represented athletes in Name, Image and Likeness contracts as well as in a state-based eligibility case, noted that Curry's ruling carried a bit more than just surface-level reasoning for granting the injunctive relief.
"Typically, the idea of an injunction is to preserve the status quo or keep everything the same while the case plays out," Paule, a shareholder at Tampa, Florida-based Hill Ward Henderson, told USA TODAY Sports. "It's not automatic; you have to show you're substantially likely to succeed and there would be irreparable harm otherwise.
Advertisement
"The injunction part of it is to allow him to play and keep the NCAA from imposing any penalties or restrictions, but it went a little bit more than that and sort of adopted what Sorsby's lawyer (Jeffery Kessler) proposed with the two-game suspension, monthly compliance plan, some other things along the way. It kind of has some of the things that you would get in a settlement agreement or final ruling."
Auerbach outlined what he believes could be the NCAA's path in appellate court.
"Let's look at what this guy did in terms of trying to show he was trying to make things better. I don't think I saw anything in terms of what his net-net was," Auerbach told USA TODAY Sports. "If all of his bets were bet wrong, then that's some level of punishment. But is there any evidence that he was successful on the ledger, plus-minus on all these bets he's made? If so, should there be some kind of monetary penalty? Maybe regardless of whether he was a winner/loser over all those bets he made.
"Does he have to do any kind of talks? He promises to be a resource for other gambling addicted people, but can we put some more scrutiny on that and some metrics on exactly how much of that he is going to do? For the NCAA, I think it's trying to say to the appeal judge, the appeals court, look at the implications of this decision of this one guy who probably wasn't as deserving as maybe somebody thought or at least that one judge thought. That, I think, is probably the initial, strongest way forward.
Advertisement
"As well as [the NCAA saying], look at all we're trying to do here at the NCAA. Trying to let student-athletes collect the value of what they're worth, we came around on the NIL thing. But here, we've got this wide-open, come-one-come-all, bet all that you want and you can probably get a slap on the wrist and carry on. Your honor, that doesn't feel very good.'"
After the NCAA issued an organizational statement on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, Charlie Baker, the association's president, also posted comment on X – without specifically citing Sorsby's name.
"There is no better example of why targeted intervention from Congress is necessary," Baker wrote. "When you have schools and deep-pocketed supporters willing to look the other way on the glaring integrity threat of betting on your own team - and judges whose rulings effectively strip away our ability to stop them - only Congress can equip the NCAA to apply this common sense rule to everyone fairly and consistently.
"The Protect College Sports Act would empower the NCAA to enforce rules including the gambling restrictions - it's needed now more than ever."
Advertisement
How did Kessler likely help Sorsby win this injunctive victory?
"The underlying dispute looks like a claim that the NCAA failed to accommodate a disability (e.g. an ADA claim based on a gambling addiction)," attorney Natale DiNatale, partner at Robinson+Cole, explained via email to USA TODAY Sports. "But, it was brought as a breach of contract claim. A contract claim can be brought and, maybe kept, in state court, which is likely a friendlier forum for this athlete."
Another attorney who previously worked on behalf of a Power Conference noted the underlying component of this case – that an athlete bet on his own team and has, for now, been cleared to resume playing that same sport at the same level of competition.
"The NCAA will immediately appeal the temporary injunctive relief and ask for an immediate hearing on the full merits of the case," said the attorney, who was granted anonymity in order to speak candidly on the matter because of his expertise. "But since the judge has already determined that Sorsby is likely to prevail, he will.
Advertisement
"That is a necessary step so the NCAA can appeal to an appellate court, which they will. Even if they can't keep Sorsby from playing this fall, the NCAA wants to eventually prevail so in future cases, precedent will be on their side. How long these two legal steps will take is just a guess. But Sorsby's attorney(s) are [of the belief] that the process will last longer than the 2026 football season. And if so, I would think (Sorsby's legal team) will just drop the litigation once the season is complete."
Paule also emphasized the magnitude of the case could compel the NCAA to pursue the full legal recourse available.
"They could view this as important enough to pursue regardless of timing," Paule told USA TODAY Sports. "It's much different than the arbitrary nature of who gets an extra year or not. The NCAA is seeking to enforce a black-and-white rule. There isn't an argument that they were seeking to enforce this rule against Sorsby but had not done so against someone else.
"It's talking about gambling on sports and gambling on the team that he happened to play on at the time."
Advertisement
Student-athletes not being legal employees of schools actually benefits Sorsby in his quest to return to play, Paule explained.
"One issue at the NCAA that is unique and wouldn't come up in other (professional) sports, they're very adamant that players aren't employees and there is no collective bargaining," Paule said. "There's no uniform guidelines in these players' contracts. Unlike the big professional sports leagues, these things tend to play out in state courts all over the country.
"As long as that continues to be the case, even as Congress tries to provide clarity and fewer rules to challenge, as long as they are student-athletes, they can go into a particular courthouse and challenge the way it's ruled, the way it's applied."
This story was updated from its original version
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: NCAA appeal of Brendan Sorsby injunction. How appeal can be won
