Film Room: State of Tennessee, et al. v. NCAA, House, Johnson

State of Tennessee, et al. v. NCAA

On March 21, 2025, the Court entered the consent judgment and permanent injunction requested by the parties in State of Tennessee, et al. v. NCAA earlier last week.

In addition to protecting NIL negotiations in the recruiting context, the Tennessee settlement enjoins the NCAA from “taking any action, or adopting any rules, bylaws, or policies, that have the effect of undermining or circumventing the provisions of the [settlement], including by adopting new rules, amendments, or interpretations thereof that effectively revive the NIL Recruiting Ban.”

As we noted in last week’s edition of Film Room, the Tennessee settlement terms raise questions regarding reconciliation with the enforcement of third-party NIL previewed by the House Settlement Implementation Committee.

House

Speaking of House, the plaintiffs submitted a reply brief in support of their motion for Final Approval, responding to opposition briefs submitted by various parties. You’re familiar with all the arguments by now.

Separate from the reply brief, Donna Lopiano and Andrew Zimbalist—Ph.D.s with a long history of working on matters involving Title IX and sports economics—submitted a letter to the Court arguing that it should not accept the settlement.

The hearing on Final Approval remains scheduled for April 7, 2025—the date of the men’s basketball championship game.

Johnson

On March 24, 2025, the NCAA and defendant institutions moved to dismiss the Johnson case.

With House appropriately garnering most of the membership’s legal and regulatory attention, it’s understandable that Johnson may not be top of mind. However, the relief requested by plaintiff student-athletes—a finding that a large swath of student-athletes are employees of their institutions—would send shockwaves throughout college athletics if granted.

Plaintiffs’ opposition brief is due May 23, 2025.

The employment question remains an area ripe for federal input. Recent congressional hearings relating to college athletics have not raised expectations that a deal is imminent. Look for the focus here to intensify if the House settlement is approved.

__________

If you have any questions about this Legal Briefing, please feel free to contact any of the attorneys listed or the Eversheds Sutherland attorney with whom you regularly work.