The federal court will be tossed out w the quickness

This case will never even get to the merits of the case and because this plus Clemson has me unable to concentrate at work today, I’ve taken it upon myself to let my Tigerdroppings Family know how and why this federal case is going nowhere. It won’t even be heard. There are too many procedural hurdles the SEC won’t be able to overcome, which I describe below.

First, in plane English the two biggest problems for the SEC are the following:

A. Requested-remedy problem. If Jorden's injunction is what prevents the SEC from disassociating/punishing LSU, how does an injunction against LSU redress the SEC's injury? Eventually the federal judge will ask “Counsel, what exactly do you want me to order LSU to do?” and the SEC will not have a good answer because ultimately the claimed injury was caused by the Louisiana state court.
 
B. Circumventing state court. The SEC must show it’s not attempting to use the federal court to circumvent the ongoing proceedings in a state court. They’ve developed an overly cute stretch of a pleading to pretend that this is a separate and new issue, but at the end of the day their requested relief to that is the exact same relief they’re seeking in the ongoing state court proceedings. I don’t know how they get around this.
 
You’ll see these exact two issues present themselves throughout the following:

1. Subject-matter jurisdiction / Article III standing, Rule 12(b)(1).
The SEC has a federal question, but it still needs injury, causation, and redressability. The problem is that LSU isn't presently stopping the SEC from sanctioning LSU; the Louisiana court is. What can an injunction against LSUactually remedy?
 
2.. Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, Rule 12(b)(6).
Even assuming jurisdiction, what has LSU actually done that constitutes unconstitutional compelled association? Recruiting/rostering court-protected athletes isn't self-evidently a First Amendment violation. The actual “compulsion” currently comes from Judge Jorden's order.
 
3. Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2283. Saw this mentioned elsewhere here and it’s correct. A federal district court generally cannot enjoin state-court proceedings except under narrow exceptions. The SEC has tried to structure around this by suing LSU and describing the relief differently. But if the requested relief effectively means “LSU cannot invoke/benefit from/comply with the Louisiana injunction,” this becomes a serious issue
 
4. Abstention / federalism / comity.
Even if the federal court technically can hear some version of the case, there's an already-pending Louisiana proceeding involving this controversy, the SEC appeared and litigated there, and that court has entered an injunction. Judge Axon has strong institutional reasons not to create competing orders or turn her courtroom into an alternative appellate forum.
 
5. Preclusion / collateral-attack problems.
The precise preclusive effect of a preliminary injunction is complicated, so I wouldn't oversell this one. But the SEC already litigated its claimed independent authority to sanction LSU before Jorden and lost at the PI stage. Changing the label to “First Amendment expressive association” doesn't automatically erase what was adjudicated in Louisiana.
 
Additionally there are issues regarding sovereign immunity and perhaps even personal jurisdiction that I won’t go into too much because it’s even drier than the above.

Look, obviously goofy stuff can happen in the courts and nobody can guarantee any outcome, but frankly I’ll be shocked if Judge Axon allows the SEC to make a mockery out of her courtroom and judgement in the way they’re trying to. I don’t care if she’s the biggest Gump in the world; a federal judgeship is a prestigious position that she surely worked very hard to achieve. Despite what most people think, judges of all stripes and political affiliation take their jobs very seriously and generally apply the law the best they can to their abilities. BLEE DAT!!!