Legal with Trinidad Chambliss and the other players. SEC in Trouble

Protection in the Chambliss lawsuit itself. His petition specifically asked the court to permanently prohibit the NCAA from:

taking any “disciplinary, penal or other action” against Chambliss or the University of Mississippi as retaliation for or related to the injunction.

But there is a catch: that language is in Chambliss’s petition/request for relief. The defendant is the NCAA, not the SEC. The February 13 court order granted Chambliss a preliminary injunction against the NCAA, and the Mississippi Supreme Court later declined the NCAA’s attempt to appeal it.
Who might punish Ole Miss? NCAA
Does Chambliss have protection?
Strong protection.
The injunction prevents the NCAA from keeping him from playing, and Chambliss specifically sought protection against NCAA retaliation toward himself or Ole Miss.
SEC under the new former-pro rule The rule does not appear to apply to Chambliss in the first place. His extra year comes from a medical-hardship eligibility dispute, not returning from professional football.
SEC creating a separate rule specifically to stop court-approved extra-year players Much less certain. The SEC isn’t currently bound by the Chambliss injunction because it wasn’t a defendant. But doing that specifically to circumvent the court order could trigger another lawsuit/injunction.
Ole Miss coaches, I have not found language in Chambliss’s existing order expressly naming or protecting individual coaches from independent SEC discipline.

Here is the important part of what I can verify:

1. The order is against the NCAA, not the SEC.
The case is Trinidad Chambliss v. National Collegiate Athletic Association. Ole Miss and the SEC are not defendants. The court found the NCAA breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing in handling Chambliss’s waiver and granted the temporary injunction allowing him to play.
But the SEC is the problem
I have not found language in Judge Whitwell’s order that says:
“The Southeastern Conference is prohibited from sanctioning Chambliss, the University of Mississippi, or its coaches.”

And because the SEC isn’t a defendant, the existing injunction does not clearly and expressly bind the SEC in the same way it binds the NCAA.

That produces this situation:
Possible action Existing Chambliss injunction
NCAA says Chambliss can’t play Blocked
NCAA punishes Chambliss because he plays Very likely blocked
NCAA punishes Ole Miss for playing him Strong argument it’s blocked, including restitution-rule sanctions
NCAA punishes Ole Miss coaches Likely challengeable if punishment is simply retaliation for complying with the injunction
SEC independently punishes Chambliss Not expressly addressed
SEC independently punishes Ole Miss Not expressly prohibited by the present order
SEC suspends an Ole Miss coach because Chambliss plays Not expressly prohibited by the present order
And that last distinction is exactly where a new lawsuit/TRO against the SEC could become necessary if the SEC actually threatens Ole Miss over Chambliss.
There is also a significant argument Ole Miss could make: if the SEC imposes punishment solely because Ole Miss allows Chambliss to do exactly what a Mississippi court has authorized him to do, the SEC would effectively be accomplishing indirectly what the NCAA has been enjoined from accomplishing directly. That doesn’t automatically mean the SEC violates the existing injunction, but it would give Chambliss/Ole Miss a substantial basis to ask Judge Whitwell or another court for emergency relief.
Chambliss and the 5-in-5 players are in a very similar procedural position. The NCAA said they could not play, and courts temporarily restrained the NCAA from enforcing that decision.
What the SEC has done is create a separate SEC eligibility rule that targets a particular subgroup of the 5-in-5 players—especially athletes who crossed into professional sports. The SEC policy says member schools cannot field athletes who, among other things, signed a professional contract, appeared on a professional roster, or entered a professional draft and did not properly withdraw. The SEC commissioner is authorized to punish member schools that violate that independent conference rule.
There is a potentially significant argument against what the SEC is doing.
The NCAA itself previously determined both groups were ineligible. In both situations, a court intervened and temporarily prevented the NCAA from enforcing its eligibility determination. The NCAA has even said schools will not be punished by the NCAA for allowing players to compete while protected by court orders.

Yet:

Chambliss:
NCAA - “Ineligible.”
Court - “NCAA can’t stop him.”
SEC- Ole Miss can play him.

Wright/Harris:
NCAA - “Ineligible.”
Court - “NCAA can’t stop them.”
SEC - “Even though the NCAA can’t stop them, we will punish LSU if it plays them.”
That is a real distinction in treatment.
But the SEC’s legal defense would be that the second prohibition comes from an independent SEC rule based on professional status, not from the NCAA eligibility determination that the TRO restrained.
There’s another very important detail
The SEC did not adopt a rule saying all players receiving 5-in-5 judicial relief are prohibited.
If it had said:
“SEC schools may not play any athlete whose NCAA eligibility exists solely because of a court injunction,”
then your comparison to Chambliss would become much harder for the SEC to explain. Chambliss himself is playing because of an injunction.
Instead, they drew the line at professional participation/status. The SEC’s official description concerns players who entered a professional draft, signed a professional contract, or joined a professional roster.
And that appears deliberate. LSU was specifically pursuing former Ole Miss players Dae’Quan Wright and Zxavian Harris after their NFL opportunities, which is what triggered the controversy.
And that appears deliberate. LSU was specifically pursuing former Ole Miss players Dae’Quan Wright and Zxavian Harris after their NFL opportunities, which is what triggered the controversy.
His lawyers could argue that the SEC has made the TRO practically worthless:
Court: NCAA cannot prevent Wright from playing.
SEC: Fine—but if LSU plays him, we will severely punish LSU and its coach.
That is why I would expect the next legal fight to involve adding or suing the SEC directly and seeking another TRO against the SEC. The current Louisiana order doesn’t automatically give that protection because the SEC wasn’t the defendant.
And Chambliss could become useful evidence
This is where your comparison becomes particularly interesting.
If the SEC argues:
A court order against the NCAA doesn’t mean the SEC has to recognize the player’s eligibility,”
a player challenging the SEC could point to Chambliss and say:
“Then why is Ole Miss permitted to use Chambliss? His NCAA eligibility also exists because a court restrained the NCAA.”
The SEC would answer:
“Because Chambliss never became a professional. Our new rule doesn’t prohibit court-injunction players generally; it prohibits former professional athletes.”
Lawyers will eat this up.