NCAA files appeal with state supreme court in Oklahoma football Owen Heinecke's injunction case

Though Owen Heinecke was cleared to play with the Sooners following a ruling from a Cleveland County district judge, he now faces additional judicial hurdles.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association filed an appeal Friday with the Oklahoma Supreme Court over a ruling on Owen Heinecke’s preliminary injunction filed against the NCAA.

Heinecke, an Oklahoma football player, got his preliminary injunction against the NCAA granted April 16 by Cleveland County District Judge Thad Balkman.

Owen Heinecke wins preliminary injunction against NCAA for another season with Oklahoma football

Owen Heinecke will be back in the crimson and cream this season.

Now, the NCAA will try to have that decision overturned by the Oklahoma Supreme Court.

“The district court erroneously granted Mr. Heinecke his requested injunctive relief,” the appeal document read. “Respectfully, the NCAA applied its rules to the letter. Plaintiff’s evidence at the hearing primarily addressed character and athletic skills-neither disputed-not his entitlement to mandatory relief. The only evidence properly considered is OU’s original submissions.

“The district court erred by concluding he met his burden by ‘clear and convincing; evidence. It substituted its judgment for the NCAA’s.”

The NCAA filed to place the appeal on the “fast track docket” or to expedite the appeal. Oklahoma State Court Network, as of Friday at 3:45 p.m., did not like any events for this case.

BACKGROUND

Heinecke needed a preliminary injunction to secure an extra season of football with the Sooners after the NCAA denied OU’s request for a waiver to extend his five-year clock.

Once the NCAA denied the waiver, Heinecke and his attorney’s filed for a preliminary injunction.

Balkman had a list of reasonings why he sided with Heinecke’s counsel last week.

He agreed that Heinecke is a third-party beneficiary to the contract the NCAA and the institutions sign, referencing the infamous Trinidad Chambliss case as precedent.

Balkman agreed with the NCAA that the court shall not insert itself into reversing decisions already made by the organization, but that based on the burden of proof Heinecke’s team presented in the initial filing, felt it was necessary.

Balkman agreed that the NCAA failed to consider the totality of his circumstances, whether that be a lack of recruitment from injuries and COVID-19 restrictions on college recruiting or his injuries he suffered throughout college.

He also agreed that the NCAA did not treat Heinecke’s case in good faith and to the ‘empowerment of student-athletes’ motto it prides itself on.

Balkman ruled that Heinecke’s team proved that missing the 2026 college football season would be ‘no doubt’ irreparable harm. Heinecke would miss out on several opportunities on and off the field, including improving his draft stock for the following draft class.

In the closing argument, Balkman agreed with the NCAA that ruling in favor of Heinecke will set precedent and bring on a flood of similar cases.

Though, he argued that if the NCAA considered the totality of Heinecke’s circumstances and treated his appeal in good faith, then the NCAA would avoid future injunction filings and could’ve avoided Heinecke’s filing, too.