Latest news with #SeventhCircuit
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Sport
- Yahoo
NCAA Scores Major Antitrust Win as Eligibility Rules Upheld
As more and more D-I college athletes whose NCAA eligibility has run out sue the association, the NCAA on Wednesday won a key decision at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in defense of its eligibility rules. The ruling could set the table for a potential split among federal circuits on whether NCAA eligibility rules comply with antitrust law, and make it possible for the U.S. Supreme Court to take on the issue. The decision comes as a spate of athletes have sued to keep playing in response to NIL and House-settlement opportunities for revenue sharing. More from Fanatics Accused of Conspiring With Leagues, Unions on High Card Prices WBD, Zaslav Say Media Coverage of NBA Deal Undercuts Investor Suit 23XI Racing, Front Row Make Third Try for Injunction Against NASCAR Writing for herself and Judge Joshua P. Kolar, Judge Amy J. St. Eve reversed U.S. District Judge William M. Conley's issuance of a preliminary injunction in February that would have allowed Wisconsin cornerback Nyzier Fourqurean to play a fifth season of college football in five years. St. Eve maintained that much of Fourqurean's case relies on an overly expansive reading of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in NCAA v. Alston (2021). In a dissenting opinion, Judge Kenneth F. Ripple asserted that the majority's decision to reverse the injunction will cause substantial harm to Fourqurean. The reversal will 'potentially deprive' him of a 'season of collegiate play to which he may be entitled,' at a time when he can no longer enter the NFL draft and therefore has, as a practical matter, no other way of forwarding his football career.' Ripple added that, 'in stark contrast, the NCAA has identified no harm it would suffer were the injunction to stand.' Fourqurean is set to graduate this December. His college football career began with a lost 2020 season at D-II Grand Valley State in Michigan due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The following year he played in the equivalent of three games at Grand Valley, followed by a full 2022 season there. He then matriculated to Wisconsin and played for the Badgers in 2023 and 2024. Fourqurean would like to play this fall as he could earn, according to court records, as much as $500,000 in NIL deals. Fourqurean might also be paid by Wisconsin through the House settlement's revenue-share feature. But he's ineligible to play since the NCAA's five-year rule (NCAA bylaw 12.8) limits athletes to four seasons of intercollegiate competition in any one sport. Conley, the district court judge, held it was problematic for the NCAA to deny Fourqurean a chance to play another season. He reasoned that Fourqurean, as a D-I football player, is a member of a labor market who can only sell his services to one type of buyer—colleges. Preventing Fourqurean from selling his services to an interested buyer allegedly interferes with the market. St. Eve disagreed. She explained that the NCAA contends the five-year rule is necessary to produce college athletics. Fourqurean contends his 'exclusion from participating in college football' is evidence of anticompetitive effects caused by the rule. The judge found there are problems with Fourqurean's approach. For one, Fourqurean doesn't effectively establish the relevant market for antitrust analysis. He maintains that Alston identified D-I FBS football as a relevant market, but St. Eve disagreed. She wrote 'the Alston Court did not decide the question of market definition,' and stressed Alston concerned an altogether separate topic: rules limiting how schools compensate athletes for education-related costs. St. Eve also reflected on the fact that 'market realities for college sports have changed in the four years since Alston,' especially 'opportunities to profit from revenue sharing and NIL.' St. Eve further reasoned that even if D-I FBS football is the relevant market for antitrust analysis, Fourqurean's case is hobbled by a 'more fundamental problem.' To prove that the five-year rule causes more anticompetitive harm than procompetitive good, he would need to show the rule expands 'the NCAA's ability to depress student-athlete compensation below the competitive level . . . by making it more difficult for the NCAA's existing or potential rivals to compete against the NCAA.' She found his proof of anticompetitive harm is limited to just his exclusion, but 'has offered no evidence in support of this mechanism for depressing compensation.' St. Eve even suggested the five-year rule might increase compensation since 'under ordinary principles of supply and demand, a restraint that limits the supply of workers in a labor market would increase, not decrease, worker compensation.' The judge also criticized Fourqurean's case on account the five-year rule doesn't reduce competition among colleges 'for each other's players.' Instead, the rule merely forces colleges to 'compete over a smaller pool of eligible players.' St. Eve suggested Fourqurean might ultimately prevail if accorded a chance to further develop his case through evidence and testimony, but she acknowledged that is unlikely since the college football season will soon begin. She urged Conley to 'expedite the coming litigation' and noted that perhaps the NCAA's Committee for Legislative relief might 'create some flexibility for the NCAA to address the hardship to Fourqurean that concerned the district court.' In his dissent, Ripple found his colleagues' reasoning flawed. He said the court should focus on whether the five-year rule 'has an anticompetitive effect on the Division I labor football market.' To that end, Ripple cited the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Radovich v. National Football League (1957), which is historic in sports law because it held that the NFL, unlike MLB, is governed by antitrust law. Ripple said Radovich helps Fourqurean. It concerned offensive lineman Bill Radovich's antitrust case against the NFL for blacklisting him because he played in a rival league, the All-America Football Conference. Ripple found Radovich and accompanying cases on point because they stand for the proposition that 'agreements among supposed competitors not to employ each other's employees not only restrict freedom to enter into employment relationships, but may also, depending upon the circumstances, impair full and free competition in the supply of a service or commodity to the public.' Ripple also writes that the five-year rule harms the labor market, because it 'forces out the market's most experienced athletes.' As a result, Ripple contends, 'the NCAA depresses NIL compensation by declaring ineligible the very players who would be entitled to the most lucrative financial arrangements because they have spent years developing their skills.' Exclusion of experienced D-I players also, in Ripple's view, makes D-I football 'a less desirable form of athletic entertainment,' which could depress TV and other 'ancillary industries.' He added, 'this depression of competition will, in time, harm the compensation of all Division I players.' In addition, Ripple rejected the NCASA's argument that the five-year rule is meaningfully linked to an athlete's academic progression. He reasons that the NCAA decision last year to permit athletes to transfer an unlimited number of times to secure more NIL and revenue-share money 'undercuts' academic justifications. 'Whatever the legitimacy of such an argument in the past, the NCAA recently revised its bylaws to allow athletes to transfer schools as many times as it appears economically advantageous to the individual player,' Ripple wrote. In a statement shared with Sportico, an NCAA spokesperson said the association and its schools' 'member-approved rules, including years of eligibility, are designed to help ensure competition is safe and fair … We are thankful the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals today reversed the district court's decision.' Fourqurean could petition the Seventh Circuit for a rehearing en banc, in which all the active judges on the court would review the arguments. Those petitions are seldom granted, but the odds are slightly better when the three-judge appellate panel, as with Fourqurean v. NCAA, renders a divided decision. Obviously, the clock is ticking as the Badgers will play their first game of the season on Aug. 28. The Seventh Circuit's ruling sets precedent for federal district courts in the circuit, meaning the district courts in Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin. It does not govern other federal district courts, including those in Tennessee, where Vanderbilt quarterback and former JUCO transfer Diego Pavia thus far has a successful case to play a sixth season this fall. Pavia's case is currently on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The possibility of Fourqurean losing at the Seventh Circuit and Pavia winning at the Sixth Circuit sets up a potential federal circuit split, a phenomenon that could attract the interest of the U.S. Supreme Court to step in, especially given that numerous athletes and schools would be impacted. Best of College Athletes as Employees: Answering 25 Key Questions
Washington Post
16-07-2025
- Sport
- Washington Post
Eligibility of Wisconsin's Nyzier Fourqurean in question after appeals court reverses injunction
MADISON, Wis. — Wisconsin cornerback Nyzier Fourqurean's status for this coming season is now unclear after a federal appeals court overturned a preliminary injunction that granted him another year of NCAA eligibility. Seventh Circuit judges ruled in a 2-1 decision rendered Wednesday to reverse the ruling by a lower court, after the NCAA appealed. Fourqurean, a fifth-year senior, had argued that his first two college seasons at Division II Grand Valley State should not count toward his eligibility. Vanderbilt quarterback Diego Pavia is expected to play again after winning his court case last year on the grounds that his two seasons at a junior college do not count. The NCAA is appealing that decision but granted a blanket waiver that will allow Pavia and other athletes who played at non-NCAA Division I schools prior to enrollment an extra year of eligibility if they were going to exhaust their eligibility this year. The NCAA in a statement said it was 'thankful the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals today reversed the district court's decision. Just as the NCAA and its member schools have always done, we will continue to work together to provide unparalleled opportunities for student-athletes and future generations.' The path forward for Fourqurean, a projected starter, is less clear with Wisconsin's season opener against Miami (Ohio) on Aug. 28 just over six weeks away. Messages sent to attorneys listed as his representatives in court documents, as well as spokespeople for Wisconsin football, were not immediately returned. Fourqurean testified during a U.S. District Court hearing in February that he would make 'hundreds of thousands of dollars' in name, image and likeness compensation if he were to play this season. After judge William Conley granted him the preliminary injunction, Fourqurean pulled out of NFL draft consideration and took part in spring practices. ___ AP sports:
Yahoo
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Florida lawmakers fail to pass Jason Raynor Act
Florida lawmakers fail to pass the Jason Raynor Act for a second time. The bill, named after Daytona Beach officer Jason Raynor, would have stiffened penalties for crimes against law enforcement officers. Othal Wallace shot and killed Raynor while he was on patrol back in 2021. Wallace was convicted of manslaughter with a firearm and sentenced to 30 years in prison. The bill passed in the Senate in April. But it failed in the House over a disagreement about the language in the bill. Seventh Circuit State Attorney R.J. Larizza prosecuted Wallace, and he supports the bill. He said, in a statement, 'We are hopeful that next year we can produce a bill that makes it through both chambers and will be signed by the governor.' Click here to download our free news, weather and smart TV apps. And click here to stream Channel 9 Eyewitness News live.
Yahoo
07-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Federal cut to children's advocacy funding ‘abandons American children,' says South Dakota nonprofit leader
Makenzie Huber South Dakota Searchlight A Rapid City-based nonprofit that advocates for children in the state court system lost $15,000 last week after the federal government terminated grant awards to the National Court Appointed Special Advocates Association. The decision 'abandons American children' and will cause ripple effects throughout the state, said Seventh Circuit CASA Program Executive Director Kehala Two Bulls. The organization serves children in Pennington, Fall River and Custer counties. Seven other organizations serve South Dakota's other circuit courts. Volunteers with CASA advocate for children who've been removed from their families and placed in state care due to suspected abuse and neglect. The volunteers meet with the children and other contacts, such as teachers, therapists and caseworkers. They also write reports to judges about the children's needs, strengths and interests to create 'customized services and decision making,' Two Bulls said. Over 330 CASA volunteers worked with 658 children in 37 counties last year, according to the state Unified Judicial System. The national organization suspended all services and support to state and local programs, it announced last week, after the Trump administration's Department of Justice terminated funding. In a statement to Reuters, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said grants were rescinded that 'do not align with the administration's priorities,' but she said the Department of Justice will 'continue to ensure that services for victims are not impacted and any recipient will have the ability to appeal and restore any grant if direct impact on victims can be thoroughly established.' The national CASA office said it is appealing. Though the Seventh Circuit was the only South Dakota CASA office receiving grant funds from the national office, other local organizations rely on services provided by the national organization. That includes training and coordination, Two Bulls said. About 80 percent of the Seventh Circuit CASA's cases are Indian Child Welfare Act cases. Shifting that administrative burden and coordination to states will result in redundancy and reduced efficiencies, she added. 'Children will be destabilized by these changes,' Two Bulls said. 'It's important for people to make these decisions responsibly. Whether people agree with this or not, there's a need for people at a local level to partner with us and step up and come up with the funding, the infrastructure, the support needed, because these are real kids that deserve good futures.' Seventh Circuit CASA was awarded $25,000 in grant funding this year — $5,000 to conduct background checks of volunteers and $20,000 to develop support and specialized services for older youth in the system. The organization already received and spent about $10,000, but won't receive the remaining $15,000. In 2014, 207 kids in the Seventh Circuit were in state care over the course of the year, Two Bulls said. In 2024, that grew to 795 children because cases are taking longer to resolve. Older children are staying in the system longer and aging out once they turn 18 years old, she added. Last year, 35 kids aged out of foster care in the area. Nearly a decade ago, that number was closer to five children a year. About 80 percent of the Seventh Circuit CASA's cases are Indian Child Welfare Act cases. Youth who age out of the system are more likely to become homeless, incarcerated or die than their peers, according to the Annie E. Casey Foundation. Two Bulls said the grant was intended to build supplemental training for advocates focused on building life skills for older children. The grants amounted to about 5 percent of the organization's operating budget, Two Bulls said. While the terminated funding won't shutter the program, she'll have to reallocate funds or find new revenue for the increasing need the grant was intended to address. 'This action was completely disconnected from the need and the vulnerability in our community,' Two Bulls said. 'What we have is less funding and less infrastructure to properly address it. We're painfully aware of how many kids it leaves at risk.' Greg Sattizahn, state court administrator for the South Dakota Unified Judicial System, said in a news release that the state is committed to 'providing leadership, support and encouragement' to the eight CASA nonprofits across the state.
Yahoo
29-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Federal cut to children's advocacy funding ‘abandons American children,' says SD nonprofit leader
The Pennington County Courthouse and jail complex in Rapid City, in June 2023. (Seth Tupper/South Dakota Searchlight) A Rapid City-based nonprofit that advocates for children in the state court system lost $15,000 last week after the federal government terminated grant awards to the National Court Appointed Special Advocates Association. The decision 'abandons American children' and will cause ripple effects throughout the state, said Seventh Circuit CASA Program Executive Director Kehala Two Bulls. The organization serves children in Pennington, Fall River and Custer counties. Seven other organizations serve South Dakota's other circuit courts. Volunteers with CASA advocate for children who've been removed from their families and placed in state care due to suspected abuse and neglect. The volunteers meet with the children and other contacts, such as teachers, therapists and caseworkers. They also write reports to judges about the children's needs, strengths and interests to create 'customized services and decision making,' Two Bulls said. Read more South Dakota Searchlight coverage of Trump administration firings, funding freezes, spending cuts, grant cancellations, tariffs and immigration enforcement on our Federal Fallout page. Over 330 CASA volunteers worked with 658 children in 37 counties last year, according to the state Unified Judicial System. The national organization suspended all services and support to state and local programs, it announced last week, after the Trump administration's Department of Justice terminated funding. In a statement to Reuters, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said grants were rescinded that 'do not align with the administration's priorities,' but she said the Department of Justice will 'continue to ensure that services for victims are not impacted and any recipient will have the ability to appeal and restore any grant if direct impact on victims can be thoroughly established.' The national CASA office said it is appealing. Though the Seventh Circuit was the only South Dakota CASA office receiving grant funds from the national office, other local organizations rely on services provided by the national organization. That includes training and coordination, Two Bulls said. Shifting that administrative burden and coordination to states will result in redundancy and reduced efficiencies, she added. 'Children will be destabilized by these changes,' Two Bulls said. 'It's important for people to make these decisions responsibly. Whether people agree with this or not, there's a need for people at a local level to partner with us and step up and come up with the funding, the infrastructure, the support needed, because these are real kids that deserve good futures.' Seventh Circuit CASA was awarded $25,000 in grant funding this year — $5,000 to conduct background checks of volunteers and $20,000 to develop support and specialized services for older youth in the system. The organization already received and spent about $10,000, but won't receive the remaining $15,000. In 2014, 207 kids in the Seventh Circuit were in state care over the course of the year, Two Bulls said. In 2024, that grew to 795 children because cases are taking longer to resolve. Older children are staying in the system longer and aging out once they turn 18 years old, she added. Last year, 35 kids aged out of foster care in the area. Nearly a decade ago, that number was closer to five children a year. About 80% of the Seventh Circuit CASA's cases are Indian Child Welfare Act cases. Children will be destabilized by these changes. – Kehala Two Bulls, executive director, Seventh Circuit CASA Program Youth who age out of the system are more likely to become homeless, incarcerated or die than their peers, according to the Annie E. Casey Foundation. Two Bulls said the grant was intended to build supplemental training for advocates focused on building life skills for older children. The grants amounted to about 5% of the organization's operating budget, Two Bulls said. While the terminated funding won't shutter the program, she'll have to reallocate funds or find new revenue for the increasing need the grant was intended to address. 'This action was completely disconnected from the need and the vulnerability in our community,' Two Bulls said. 'What we have is less funding and less infrastructure to properly address it. We're painfully aware of how many kids it leaves at risk.' Greg Sattizahn, state court administrator for the South Dakota Unified Judicial System, said in a news release that the state is committed to 'providing leadership, support and encouragement' to the eight CASA nonprofits across the state. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
