re: The federal court will be tossed out w the quickness

How long does the federal process take? I'm surprised we haven't heard anything since it was filed.

PARTIES

11. Plaintiff the Southeastern Conference is the nation’s premier intercollegiate athletic conference. Founded in 1933, it is an unincorporated nonprofit association organized under Alabama law and headquartered at 2201 Richard Arrington Jr. Boulevard North, Birmingham, Alabama 35203.

12. The SEC has sixteen member institutions, fifteen of which are state universities: the University of Alabama, Auburn University, the University of Arkansas, the University of Florida, the University of Georgia, the University of Kentucky, Louisiana State University, the University of Mississippi, Mississippi State University, the University of Missouri, the University of Oklahoma, the University of South Carolina, the University of Tennessee, Texas A&M University, the University of Texas, and Vanderbilt University (the only private institution).

13. Defendant Louisiana State University is a public university located in Baton Rouge, Louisiana and organized under the laws of the State of Louisiana. LSU has been a member of the SEC since the Conference’s founding in 1933 and is bound by the Conference’s Constitution and Bylaws.

14. Defendant Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College is a public university system board responsible for supervising and managing the institutions within the system, including LSU.

15. Defendant Wade Rousse is the President of Louisiana State University. He is named only in his official capacity.

16. Defendant Verge Ausberry is the Vice President and Director of Athletics of Louisiana State University. He is responsible for the development, management, and supervision of LSU’s athletics program. He is sued only in his official capacity.

17. Defendant Lane Kiffin is the head football coach at Louisiana State
University. He is sued only in his official capacity.


JURISDICTION AND VENUE

18. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over the SEC’s claims under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, enforceable through 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and over its claim for declaratory relief, which is authorized by 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.

19. Because each Defendant is a state actor and the SEC seeks redress for the deprivation of its constitutional rights under color of state law, the SEC’s claims are cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Lindke v. Freed, 601 U.S. 187, 195 (2024); see also Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 159 (1908).

20. Venue is proper in the Northern District of Alabama, Southern Division, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the SEC’s claims occurred in this District. The SEC is headquartered within this district, in Birmingham, Alabama. The SEC’s governance deliberations, the actions taken by the Conference’s Presidents and Chancellors (including Defendant Rousse) and Commissioner as described further below, and the issuance of the memoranda described herein all occurred in or were directed from this District. The injuries to the SEC’s expressive association rights were suffered at the SEC’s headquarters in this District.

21. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant LSU because of LSU’s continuous and systematic membership and governance activities within the SEC. These continuous and systematic activities in Alabama arise out of LSU’s membership in and management of the Conference. Since 1933, LSU has been a voluntary member of the SEC, which is headquartered in this District. LSU agreed to the SEC’s Constitution and Bylaws, which are administered from this District. LSU regularly participates in Conference governance meetings held in this District, sends athletic teams to this District for intercollegiate competitions and SEC events located in Alabama (including football games against the University of Alabama and the SEC Baseball Tournament held annually in Hoover, Alabama), and derives substantial revenue from Conference media agreements entered in and administered from this District. LSU’s membership in the SEC and its obligations under the Conference’s governing documents are administered and enforced from this District.

22. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants Rousse, Ausberry, and Kiffin. In their official capacities, jurisdiction over these Defendants is coextensive with jurisdiction over LSU. Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165-66 (1985).

23. Defendant Rousse regularly attends meetings of the SEC’s Presidents and Chancellors, including in-person meetings in this District, and takes action at those meetings in his capacity as a Chief Executive Officer of the Conference.

24. Indeed, Defendant Rousse was physically present in Birmingham, Alabama recently when he attended a two-day meeting of the Conference’s Presidents and Chancellors, participated in Conference governance decisions, and engaged in conduct that is at the heart of this lawsuit.

25. Defendant Ausberry regularly attends meetings of the SEC’s Athletic Directors, including in-person meetings in this District.

26. Defendant Kiffin regularly attends meetings of the SEC’s head football coaches and has attended an in-person meeting in this District. Defendant Kiffin has also appeared in this District for intercollegiate competitions against another SEC member institution located in this District, the University of Alabama.


Requested relief:

COUNT I - DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BASED ON ACTUAL AND THREATENED VIOLATIONS OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Against All Defendants)

76. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the SEC has suffered and continues to suffer injury, including the infringement of its First Amendment rights, competitive imbalance among its member institutions, and harm to its institutional identity and public reputation.

55. The SEC therefore requests that the Court enter a declaratory judgment that the First Amendment protects the SEC’s right to disassociate from Defendants’ conduct.


COUNT II - INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (Preliminary and Permanent Injunction) (Against All Defendants)

63. The SEC requests that this Court enter:

(a) A preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants from violating the Conference’s First Amendment rights by compelling the Conference to associate with conduct that is contrary to the Conference’s purpose and mission;

(b) A preliminary and permanent injunction barring Defendants from seeking to deter, coerce, prevent, or punish the Conference for exercising its First Amendment rights.


PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff the Southeastern Conference respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in its favor and against Defendants, and grant the following relief:

A. Enter a declaratory judgment that the First Amendment protects the Conference’s right to disassociate from Defendants’ conduct;

B. Enter a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants from violating the Conference’s First Amendment rights by compelling the Conference to associate with conduct that is contrary to the Conference’s purpose and mission;

C. Enter a preliminary and permanent injunction barring Defendants from seeking to deter, coerce, prevent, or punish the Conference for exercising its First Amendment rights.

quote:

---

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!!!

---

And yet we still end up with lifetime appointed Supreme Court justices who see the same set of facts, go by the same wording in the constitution, and have access to the same case law reaching 5-4 decisions along political divisions (aka based on their favorite team).

I have a few questions I haven't seen addressed yet and curious if you have an opinion on these:

1. Would a verdict against LSU in B'ham case then be applied retroactively against every other school that has ever signed a contract and/or played for a professional team? If not, why not?

2. Has anyone in the SEC defined what it is that makes someone a professional athlete.

3. Why does the 5 for 5 rule the NCAA adopted not apply to players in their 6th and 7th years?

4. My understanding is that LSU's women's soccer team played a former professional athlete, would this alone be cause to suffer the penalties approved by the presidents.

Genuinely curious here and thanks for any insights!

Would you mind explaining how any of the athletes have standing to bring suit in the first place.

The 5 for 5 rule was issued after the 2026 academic/sports year ended making them former NCAA athletes. If they no longer had eligibility to play for NCAA under the old rules and the rule changed after the fact and clearly did not include them. How do they have standing to sue?

quote:

---

1. Would a verdict against LSU in B'ham case then be applied retroactively against every other school that has ever signed a contract and/or played for a professional team? If not, why not?

---

No. Other schools are not a party to the ND Ala case.

quote:

---

2. Has anyone in the SEC defined what it is that makes someone a professional athlete.

---

It appears that the SEC will deem a person to be a professional if the person: (1) enters the NFL, NBA, WNBA draft and fails to withdraw properly; (2) signs a playing contract with a professional football league, the NBA, the G-League, the WNBA, or an affiliated team; or (3) appears on an official active or practice roster for any of those professional organizations.

Surprisingly, the definition does not include professional sports other than football and basketball, such as MLB or the NHL.

quote:

---

3. Why does the 5 for 5 rule the NCAA adopted not apply to players in their 6th and 7th years?

---

The rule indicates that players only have five years to play, so . . .

quote:

---

4. My understanding is that LSU's women's soccer team played a former professional athlete, would this alone be cause to suffer the penalties approved by the presidents.

---

Perhaps not because the USL Super League is not one of the listed leagues.

Thanks for the insights, much appreciated!

Have you looked at some of the rulings from Democratic Federal Judges?

You gonna be wrong my friend.....