TROs and Other Fun Legal Actions - The Ultimate Gamble for LSU

Under Louisiana law and general sports law principles governing private athletic associations, acting under the protection of a TRO is done at the party's own risk. If the underlying injunction is dissolved or reversed on appeal, the protection it provided evaporates retroactively, exposing the acting party to the consequences of violating the rule during that interim period.

The legal mechanism for how this applies to the current SEC and LSU eligibility dispute highlights key risks:

1. The "Restoration" Rule and Retroactive Penalties

In athletic association disputes, conferences frequently utilize what is commonly known as a restoration rule or restitution rule.

• These bylaws explicitly state that if a school fields an ineligible player under the protection of a court order (like a TRO), and that court order is later vacated or reversed, the conference retains the right to retroactively strip wins, forfeit games, impose financial penalties, or enact severe administrative sanctions—up to and including ejection from the conference.

• The NCAA has a famous equivalent (NCAA Bylaw 12.11.4), and major conferences like the SEC govern their member institutions through contractually binding constitutions that feature similar mechanisms to protect the integrity of their rules.

2. Louisiana's "Wrongful Issuance" Doctrine

Louisiana courts recognize that preliminary injunctions are temporary, interlocutory measures meant only to maintain the status quo. If a party utilizes an injunction to block an opponent from acting (e.g., stopping a construction project or freezing assets) and a higher court reverses it, the ultimate ruling establishes that the restriction was a legal error. The party who forced the status quo must financially make the winning party whole for any losses suffered during that interim period.

• While a TRO protects a party from contempt of court while it is active (meaning the SEC could not fine LSU for violating a court order), it does not permanently erase the underlying contractual breach.

• When a higher court reverses the TRO, the law views the situation as if the TRO should have never existed. Consequently, LSU’s actions during that period are legally evaluated as a straightforward, unexcused breach of the SEC’s newly passed professional athlete ban.

The SEC can likely eject or otherwise penalize LSU if the temporary restraining order (TRO) is ultimately reversed.

From a strict Louisiana civil law standpoint, Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 3608 dictates that if an injunction or TRO is reversed, it is legally deemed to have been "wrongfully issued."

3. Voluntary Association Immunity

Louisiana courts grant immense deference to private, voluntary athletic associations (like the SEC) to manage their internal affairs and enforce their own bylaws. Unless a member school can prove that the conference acted with fraud, malice, or in direct violation of constitutional law, Louisiana courts will generally refuse to step in and micro-manage an association's decision to eject or penalize a member for breaking a validly enacted internal pact.

The Ultimate Gamble for LSU

While the former NFL players are fighting a macro-level battle to reshape college sports under federal antitrust law, LSU is dealing with a micro-level contract law issue with its conference.

If LSU chooses to play those athletes during the active TRO window, it is essentially betting that the players will permanently win their antitrust lawsuit. If the players lose at the preliminary injunction stage or on appeal, the SEC can legally eject LSU or forfeit its games, and LSU cannot use the "but a judge told us we could at the time" defense to escape those contractually agreed-upon conference penalties.

PART 2 of 2

DISCLAIMER: The materials in this post are for informational purposes only and are not legal advice. Use of this post does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and this poster. You should not act upon the information in this post without seeking advice from a lawyer licensed in your own state or country. Please note that you should not send any confidential information pertaining to potential legal services to this poster until you have received written agreement from this poster to perform the legal services you requested. Unless you have received such written confirmation, this poster will not consider any correspondence you send to this poster as confidential.

quote:

---

isn't worth the squeeze

---

domi.. I ask this in all sincerity.. what squeeze? The PR hit?

Lafe kiffin, Will Wade. Kim Mulkey

We are gonna be vilified either way

This is all player led and going through their lawyers.

If they are ruled eligible, and we walk away do you think we'll all the sudden going to be the heros? No, we'll still be the bad guys who "started all this" (we didnt) these players will go straight to our competition.

quote:

---

quote:

---

isn't worth the squeeze

---

domi.. I ask this in all sincerity.. what squeeze?

---

mdomingue is smart.

In this case, perhaps "isn't worth the squeeze" could be better worded as "isn't worth the illness if the juice is tainted."

There seems to be little LSU has to do to let these former NFL camp players play. HOWEVER, if LSU lets these players play, and they ultimately lose their case or the TROs/PIs get otherwise reversed or overturned, LSU could suffer some serious repercussions.

In other words, if the TROs/PIs turn out to be wrongful injunctions, the juice might be worth the squeeze, but it won't be worth the food poisoning that comes later.

mdomingue is probably smarter than me. I'll let him decide if he wants to amend his post.

I think the former NFL camp players have the better argument. I think the law supports them. They should be allowed to play.

I just wish LSU wasn't playing the part of Damocles.

quote:

---

Anyone think that Kiffin just may be smart enough to be playing the game right here?

---

I think LSU is playing that game. You want everyone to do it or no one. And Lane is the perfect lightning rod.

quote:

---

what squeeze? The PR hit?

---

The PR hit isn't great, but who really cares about that in general? Where it could come into play is missing the playoffs if we are in the bubble range. Remember, the playoff committee is susceptible to public opinion and has shown it can be influenced by the powers that be in the NCAA/P4 conference structures. Maybe not straight up coerced, but influenced to rank a team that should be 9th or 10th, 13th

For football, the two players currently in question aren't good enough to offset any potential consequences.

In Basketball, no one who is being reasonable thinks Luis should be allowed to play college basketball after leaving early and then flaming out in the G League.

But I do agree that you just sit on your hands now and wait it out, but be cautious and look at the wording of any decisions. Avoid exposure to down the road punishments.

Holy ChatGPT

The gamble is definitely by LSU and this is why all of the players in question will never be placed on any LSU roster until final adjudication.

READ the SEC penalties starting with 50% of the sport’s operating budget. For football, that amounts to tens of millions of dollars the conference won’t have to try to collect. They will simply withhold it from LSU’s share of revenues for the season.

I see no way any state or federal appellate court, not some forum shopped local judge, will issue a final order in this matter until months from now. No one in their right mind is going to take a chance when tens of millions are at stake.