re: Found this legal post on the lawsuit against LSU.

In layman’s terms imho:

So Louisiana got there first and told the SEC, “You can’t punish LSU for using these players.” Then the SEC ran to federal court in Alabama and tried to repackage the same fight as a First Amendment case: “We’re not arguing eligibility; LSU is forcing us to associate with conduct we reject.” LSU’s response will be: “Cute wording, but you’re still asking an Alabama judge to undo what the Louisiana judge just protected.”

Then the post says LSU can argue: “Don’t create two courts giving opposite orders. The Louisiana case was first, it’s already much farther along, and the SEC’s Alabama lawsuit looks REACTIVE and PUNITIVE ” That is a legitimate argument under the Colorado River doctrine.

It’s a decent take imho but far from airtight. The Anti- Injunction parties solid. The SEC cannot just simply nullify an active state court injunction. But that doesn’t mean they can’t nullify it through other arguments. And I think that’s what the SEC does-they make a separate argument-and say “ this is a separate lawsuit”. The Louisiana case is primarily the athletes’ eligibility challenge against the NCAA/SEC. The Alabama case is the SEC asserting its own alleged federal constitutional right against LSU officials.

As for the frivolous “ first amendment “ bullshite- LSU wins this one imho with a s simple argument that sound like this : Letting LSU put two eligible players on the field doesn’t force Greg Sankey to endorse anything. The SEC can criticize LSU all it wants”. This is regulation of football conduct, not compelled speech.

Let’s ride.