Story by
How Cortez Braham's lawyers responded to NCAA threats against Memphis
- Story by
- How Cortez Braham's lawyers responded to NCAA threats against Memphis
A week after the NCAA signaled in a legal filing it wanted to punish Memphis for allowing receiver Cortez Braham to play for the Tigers while eligible because of a court injunction, lawyers for the player responded and again asked for the NCAA's appeal to be dismissed.
After the 2025 season, Braham's lawyers filed a motion to dismiss the NCAA's appeal of the preliminary injunction that made Braham eligible to play for Memphis in 2025.
Advertisement
The case , they argued, should be dismissed because the issue was moot, with the season — and Braham's collegiate career — finished. The NCAA's lawyers disagreed and filed a response on Feb. 9 that laid out why the case should go forward. Among the reasons was the NCAA's assertion that it wanted to enforce its "rule of restitution" against Memphis for allowing Braham to play in 2025.
In the response filed Feb. 17, Braham's lawyers asserted that the NCAA's interest in punishing Memphis should not be a reason to continue with the case.
"Here, UM is not a party to this litigation," they wrote. "The notion that this appeal is somehow live because a ruling on the NCAA's Rule of Restitution could lead to the possibility of the NCAA punishing UM goes against basic due process standards and is not a proper use of the judicial mechanism. If the NCAA seeks to punish one of Braham's schools for following district court orders — here, allowing Braham to play for the football team in 2025-2026 — the NCAA must file an action against UM, not continue this frivolous appeal."
The NCAA cannot legally enforce the rule of restitution against Memphis because the injunction that made Braham eligible expressly prohibited that from happening. For the NCAA to be able to punish Memphis, the NCAA would have to prevail in the case against Braham, provided his motion to dismiss is not granted by a judge.
Advertisement
Oral arguments in the case are set for March 13 in Las Vegas.
Braham is being represented by the same lawyers in this case as former San Diego State defensive lineman Tatuo Martinson. Braham and Martinson have extremely similar cases and are being litigated in the exact same way. In the Martinson case, the NCAA said it wants to punish San Diego State for allowing Martinson to play in 2025.
In both cases, the lawyers for Braham and Martinson argued that if the NCAA wanted to fully litigate eligibility cases, there were better cases to choose. Both Braham and Martinson's cases dealt with the five-year clock and were specific to their situations, while other cases (like the one involving former Vanderbilt quarterback Diego Pavia) were more broad in the number of athletes they affected.
Advertisement
Braham began his career at Hutchinson Community College in Kansas. He attempted to transfer to West Virginia after two seasons at the junior college level but could not because his GPA was 0.1 points below the threshold. He spent an extra year at Hutchinson, improved his grades and transferred to West Virginia the next year. After two years there, he transferred to Nevada before filing a lawsuit to get one more year of eligibility.
After a judge granted him an injunction, he transferred to Memphis. He was the Tigers' top receiver in 2025 and had 889 receiving yards and eight touchdowns.
Reach sports writer Jonah Dylan at jonah.dylan@commercialappeal.com or on X @thejonahdylan.
This article originally appeared on Memphis Commercial Appeal: Cortez Braham's lawyers respond to NCAA threats against Memphis football
