Ninth Circuit Rules NCAA Eligibility Injunction Appeals Moot Amid Antitrust Claims
Ninth Circuit dismissed NCAA’s appeals of preliminary injunctions on eligibility rule as moot.
Why it matters: This ruling affects ongoing challenges to NCAA’s five-year eligibility rule and antitrust oversight in college sports. Legal professionals should watch how it shapes governance and player rights going forward.
- Ninth Circuit dismissed appeals in Braham v. NCAA (No. 25-5040) and Martinson v. NCAA (No. 25-5962) as moot on Sept. 9, 2026.
- The court ruled the athletes’ collegiate careers had ended, so no controversy remained to decide.
- Ninth Circuit rejected NCAA’s argument that the cases fit the mootness exception for issues capable of repetition yet evading review.
- In April 2026, the Fourth Circuit vacated a similar preliminary injunction, condemning the use of quick-look scrutiny over rule of reason antitrust analysis.
On September 9, 2026, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed two appeals brought by the NCAA challenging preliminary injunctions that permitted football players to compete in the 2025 season.
The cases—Braham v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (Case No. 25-5040) and Martinson v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (Case No. 25-5962)—were ruled moot because the athletes’ collegiate careers had concluded, leading the court to state, "The clock has run out on the season and the athletes' collegiate careers have wrapped." This meant no ongoing controversy warranted appellate review.
The court rejected the NCAA’s claim that an exception to mootness, for issues "capable of repetition yet evading review," applied here. Without this exception, the cases could not proceed.
Previously, in April 2026, the Fourth Circuit vacated a preliminary injunction concerning the five-year eligibility rule against former junior college players. It criticized the lower court for employing "quick-look scrutiny" rather than the more thorough "rule of reason" in its antitrust analysis, effectively raising the burden on plaintiffs challenging NCAA rules.
Back in March 2026, Ninth Circuit judges expressed internal disagreement over the mootness of similar cases and debated how injunctions against the NCAA’s enforcement intersected with the ability to seek restitution from universities.
These varied rulings underscore continuing judicial skepticism and complexity surrounding the NCAA’s five-year eligibility rule amid antitrust litigation. They hold implications for collegiate athletics governance, player participation rights, and broader antitrust scrutiny.
By the numbers:
- September 9, 2026 — Date of Ninth Circuit dismissal of NCAA’s appeals
- #25-5040 and #25-5962 — Ninth Circuit case numbers (Braham and Martinson)
- April 3, 2026 — Fourth Circuit vacates eligibility injunction using rule of reason analysis
Yes, but: The Ninth Circuit’s mootness dismissal leaves unresolved substantive antitrust questions, so future litigation over the NCAA’s eligibility rules remains likely.
What's next: Watch for further appellate rulings on NCAA eligibility and antitrust claims, especially with impending cases testing the rule of reason standard.