Judge Orders NCAA to Grandfather Athletes Into New Eligibility Model

The NCAA’s new age-based eligibility policy has lost its first legal battle.

On Thursday, Hamilton County, Ohio, judge Chris Wagner granted an injunction to force the NCAA to allow 24 athletes who graduated high school in 2022 and completed four collegiate seasons a fifth year of eligibility—thus grandfathering them into the new policy passed just a few weeks ago. 

While the injunction requires only that the NCAA grant eligibility to the current plaintiffs, it could eventually force the NCAA to allow thousands of similarly situated athletes another year in college sports. The NCAA could, however, appeal the ruling. Additionally, a legal team including attorneys Darren Heitner and Ryan Downton has filed one other lawsuit, so there will be more injunction decisions to come. 

For now, however, Heitner wrote on X: “THE FIRST BATTLE IS WON.”

The lawsuit was first filed by 15 men’s and women’s basketball players on June 24 (now up to a total of 24), just one day after the NCAA voted to approve a new “age-based eligibility model” that would allow players five years to complete up to five seasons beginning during the season after their 19th birthday or when they enroll in college. The new policy eliminated redshirting (which previously allowed players to compete in four seasons over five years) and waivers, except in a few extenuating circumstances, including pregnancy, military service, and religious missions. In addition to giving players more opportunities in college sports, the new policy was intended to make NCAA eligibility restrictions less susceptible to legal challenges. 

The basketball players who sued the NCAA in the wake of the policy change didn’t challenge the new rules themselves; instead, the lawsuit challenged the organization’s decision not to grandfather in athletes who graduated in 2022 but had already completed four seasons. 

“The NCAA’s application of this bylaw to Plaintiffs unfairly limits the number of games they can participate in during their ‘five-year eligibility window’ and unjustifiably restrains their ability to earn money through use of their name, image, and likeness (“NIL”) connected to their work as Division I athletes,” their complaint read.

The NCAA defended its decision, saying in a June statement that it had no intention of changing its guidelines as a result of the lawsuit. The commissioners of the Pac-12. ACC, SEC, Big Ten, Big 12, and Big East also signed an affidavit in support of the NCAA’s position. 

“Thousands of currently eligible student-athletes have already matriculated (or will do so soon) to NCAA member institutions based on athletic opportunities available to them under the current rules framework, and those member institutions have filled their rosters based upon the same,” the affidavit said. “Granting plaintiffs’ requested relief would harm these incoming student-athletes because they would stand to lose out on the opportunities for roster spots or playing time that factor into one of the most important decisions many young adults make in their lives: where to attend college.”

In his 14-page ruling, Judge Wagner sided with the athletes, not only forcing the NCAA to allow them to play but also granting them the ability to use the transfer portal outside the typical transfer window.

Wagner wrote that the players had a “substantial likelihood of success on the merits” of the case, and that the NCAA had applied its eligibility rules “in an arbitrary and capricious manner.” His ruling specifically cited the plaintiffs’ examples that athletes who had graduated from high school before 2022 had received fifth or sixth years of eligibility due to COVID waivers or other factors. The ruling also noted players who graduated in 2022 but had not yet exhausted four years of eligibility would be allowed to benefit from the new policy.

Wagner also agreed that the players would suffer irreparable harm if they lost the opportunity to take part in NCAA sports—a multi-billion-dollar business from which players can now profit. “As the coaches testified in the July 1, 2026, hearing, certain teams have reserved a roster spot for this season, providing a potential spot for the Plaintiffs if they are granted eligibility,” the decision wrote. (During the hearing, for example, Xavier coach Richard Pitino testified that the program had $14 million in NIL money to award to members of the men’s basketball roster.) “Therefore, the Court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable injury if the preliminary injunction is not granted.”

Finally, Wagner disagreed with the prospect that other players would be harmed if thousands of high school Class of 2022 athletes were still allowed to play. “Plaintiffs are not asking to take a player’s roster spot or to add an additional roster spot: Plaintiffs want the opportunity to compete for a currently available spot on the roster,” he wrote. 

The decision also included a harsh rebuke of the NCAA’s external conduct—specifically with a letter asking schools and players not to use the legal system to challenge rules. It called certain aspects of the letter disturbing, adding: “The public interest is best served when the courthouse doors are open to all.”

The NCAA was not swayed by this final point. In its statement, it said: “As disappointing as the ruling itself is the decision by some member schools to support a lawsuit designed to circumvent the rules by which those same schools agreed to be bound. It is fundamentally unfair to the many programs and student-athletes who follow the rules to compete against those who do not. Integrity in college sports relies on all members abiding by the same standards.”

Outstanding Litigation

While the ruling was the first regarding the NCAA’s application of its new eligibility policy, it won’t be the last.

Attorneys Heitner and Downton previously told Front Office Sports they would file more lawsuits in different states—they have more than 50 basketball players willing to sign onto cases in multiple jurisdictions. So far, they’ve filed two—in addition to the Ohio case, they filed a lawsuit in Tennessee on behalf of Vanderbilt center James Washington earlier this week. 

The Ohio case ruling could inform the decision in the Tennessee lawsuit and future cases, but it doesn’t set a binding precedent. So the NCAA will have to fight each lawsuit separately in order to protect its eligibility standard.