TL; DR; NL. The LSU brief hammers home the argument that there is no dispute because LSU complied and is no threat, and that the SEC has no "free association" claim against an organization it has the power to throw out.

LSU has filed a reply (a response to a response) in the lawsuit by the SEC. It is good.

The first paragraph is a zinger. I quote it fully here (citations omitted).

quote:
It is unclear why the SEC has not dismissed this case. The SEC has abandoned its request for preliminary relief because it concededly faces no harm “at this time.” It has abandoned its core allegations that LSU would “include two former professional athletes on its football roster” and “block or interfere with the September 10th meeting.” And it effectively concedes that its “First Amendment” claim is no constitutional claim at all: The SEC claims the “right to terminate LSU’s membership in the Conference” (so there is no compelled association), while repeatedly complaining about LSU’s supposed “defiance of the Conference’s Professionalism Rules” (without identifying a single violation). So obvious is the case for dismissal that the SEC throws a Hail Mary: new (and demonstrably false) claims that the LSU men’s basketball program is violating SEC rules. Enough is enough. There is no good reason to waste this Court’s time and resources—the Court should summarily dismiss the SEC’s complaint without prejudice to the SEC’s ability to file a real case.

LSU then repeats its best argument: The SEC cannot claim "forced asociation" when it has the right to throw LSU out.

quote:
Any continued association with LSU is thus the SEC’s choice, and self-inflicted harms cannot confer standing.

I think this is a damn good argument.

The reply then refutes the argument that the SEC should be able to continue this litigation because LSU might try to interfere.

quote:
The SEC has no scheduled termination meeting or any factual basis to assert—contrary to LSU’s public representations— that LSU would somehow interfere with such a meeting. The supposed “interference” fear is thus entirely “conjectural or hypothetical.”

They then make an argument that works but is a bit complex. They point out that to establish a "threat" by LSU, the SEC cites the Pyburn litigation, which is the injunction suit in Baton Rouge, which LSU says "inadvertently proves that this is not a First Amendment case." LSU points out that to continue with the federal case, the SEC must prove a First Amendment harm, while the Pyburn litigation is about SEC rules.

I just do not find this all that compelling. The better argument gets relegated to a footnote:

quote:
he SEC does not disclose that the Pyburn court enjoined LSU itself. * * * If LSU sought to work hand in glove with the Pyburn plaintiffs, it has failed mightily.

That last is a good line.

They then move to ripeness and mootness, pointing out that LSU did not roster the players in question. Here they also have a good line.

quote:
But more fundamentally, the SEC cannot seriously claim that LSU violated the SEC’s policies by doing precisely what the SEC rushed to this Court to accomplish.

They then address the Will Wade quote by quoting all of it. (Someone here had pointed out that they had cherrypicked it in the response).

quote:
As early as September 23, Coach Will Wade publicly said: “We’re going to abide by what the SEC tells us to abide by.”That was at the same press conference from which the SEC plucks phrases like “We’re going to be unapologetic about it.” As the full context shows, Coach Wade was “unapologetic” about building his roster in an unconventional way—not, as the SEC misleadingly suggests, violating SEC rules. The lack of candor is startling.

(emphasis added).

I think this hurts the SEC on credibility with the Court.

The reply then makes a very clever argument on the SEC's First Amendment rights. Recall that free speech protects citizens from state action. It does not protect the state. The SEC is comprised of fifteen state universities. If they are considered the "state," there is no First Amendment claim.

The brief slams first them on the argument that public universities are not state actors. A whole lot of law says they are.

But then they turn to Vanderbilt, which is the sixteenth member and clearly a private university. The SEC seems to claim that it is asserting Vanderbilt's private right. Here is where it gets good.

quote:
The SEC claims that “Vanderbilt has First Amendment rights [and] that the SEC can assert those rights on Vanderbilt’s behalf.” But the SEC does not respond to Defendants’ point that this “boil[s] down to the claim of an association-of-one,” which “y definition, [] is not a viable freedom-of-association claim.” The SEC retorts (Opp.27) that the SEC itself has First Amendment rights. But that does not change the fact that the SEC has only one member with First Amendment rights. [b]And with what other First Amendment-protected entity does the one-member SEC associate for purposes of this claim? The SEC does not say.

(emphasis added).

In other words, if Vandy is the only member with a First Amendment claim, then it is free to associate with itself, and therefore there is no free association claim by the other state members. The brief has made the same point several ways, but I really like this one, although I am not completely sure the logic aligns perfectly.

That is my quick take. It just came out, and I read it quickly. Would like to hear the Rant lawyers' thoughts.

This post was edited on 10/20/26 at 4:26 pm