ILNews

7th Circuit to hear arguments in NCAA price-fixing lawsuit

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals hears arguments Monday in a case brought by two former NCAA athletes whose scholarships were revoked after injuries. The litigants claim that they were wrongly denied multi-year scholarships that would have covered the cost of their bachelor’s degrees.

In the case of Joseph Agnew, et al. v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, No. 11-3066, a federal appellate panel will hear arguments in the case from the Southern District of Indiana following a removal from the Northern District of California. U.S. Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson ruled Sept. 1 in favor of the Indianapolis-headquartered NCAA, dismissing the challenges to two bylaws that dealt with a one-year scholarship limit for student-athletes and a cap on athletic-based discounts that a school can offer per sport each year.

The judge found she was bound by Banks v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, 977 F.2d 1081, 1087-88 (7th Cir. 1992), which examined that lawsuit under the “Rule of Reason” analysis. She declined to apply the “quick look” version of the rule as the plaintiffs argued, and found that the plaintiffs failed to plead a relevant product market. Magnus-Stinson wrote, “… the ‘market’ for bachelor’s degrees is implausible as a matter of law because people cannot simply purchase bachelor’s degrees at Division I colleges and universities.”

 After that ruling dismissed the suit with prejudice, plaintiffs Joseph Agnew and Patrick Courtney filed an appeal.

In appellate briefs filed with court, the plaintiff-appellants argue that the NCAA is trying to reach beyond the District court’s holding by contending not only the financial aid rules are valid, but all the NCAA rules involving student-athletes are presumptively pro-competitive.

“In essence, the NCAA claims an exemption from the antitrust laws for all but a small portion of its rules dealing with television broadcast or coaches’ salaries,” the brief states. “This is a dangerous perversion of the Supreme Court’s rulings….is unsupported by any precedent, and would result in giving the NCAA carte blanche to violate the antitrust laws regardless of the anticompetitive motivation or effect of its rules. The NCAA’s arguments on this appeal should be rejected.”

The NCAA didn’t file a brief prior to the arguments, which are scheduled for 9 a.m. Central Time. Each side has 15 minutes to make their arguments, and there is no timeline on when the appellate panel must make a decision.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  2. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  3. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

  4. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  5. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

ADVERTISEMENT