NCAA Challenges Ohio, Escalates Student-Athlete Eligibility Fight

Takeaways

• The NCAA sued to block Ohio’s executive order allowing Class of 2022 student-athletes an additional year of eligibility despite NCAA rules. 
• The NCAA continues to argue that nationwide eligibility standards are not subject to state laws.
• Schools must continue to weigh legal and association consequences in handling athlete eligibility.

Related links

• NCAA President Charlie Baker announces legal filing in Ohio federal court
• Governor DeWine Signs Executive Order Addressing College Athlete Eligibility
• Borovicanin v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n
• NCAA’s New Eligibility Rule Creates Immediate Compliance Obligations + a Legal Challenge
• Bernard Dennis Discusses NCAA Eligibility Litigation

Article

State executive action is the next front in disputes over student-athlete Class of 2022 eligibility. The NCAA has filed suit against Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine in response to his executive order (EO) permitting all Class of 2022 Ohio student-athletes to receive an additional year of collegiate eligibility despite the NCAA’s new age-based eligibility rules.

The EO was issued against the backdrop of litigation across the country challenging the NCAA’s new Age-Based Eligibility Model. Many Class of 2022 student-athletes have sought relief in court from the NCAA’s refusal to extend the new eligibility framework to portions of their class. Courts in several jurisdictions have permitted those athletes to compete while their claims are adjudicated. However, a week before the EO went into effect, an Ohio appellate court, in Borovicanin v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, No. 2026-Ohio-3885 (Oct. 2, 2026), reversed a preliminary injunction that would have allowed two dozen college basketball players to play this year. The Ohio decision followed a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit staying a nationwide injunction.

According to Ohio, its institutions are at a competitive disadvantage if other states are permitted to roster these athletes by court orders while Ohio schools adhere to NCAA eligibility restrictions. Gov. DeWine said, “We want Ohio’s student-athletes to have the same opportunity as student-athletes in other states.”

NCAA Lawsuit

The NCAA is seeking an injunction from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio barring enforcement of the EO.

According to the NCAA, permitting Ohio institutions to disregard eligibility rules undermines national standards governing intercollegiate athletics and disadvantages student-athletes.

Based on the dormant Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, the NCAA challenges the EO for three primary reasons:

1. It has a discriminatory purpose because it will give Ohio institutions a competitive advantage over institutions in other states; 
    
2. It impermissibly regulates extraterritorial commerce by authorizing Class of 2022 athletes to participate fully in interstate intercollegiate athletics; and 
    
3. It imposes an excessive burden on interstate commerce because national athletic organizations cannot function effectively if member institutions are subject to differing requirements based on state law.

Beyond its Commerce Clause claims, the NCAA advances additional constitutional and state law arguments.

Gov. DeWine’s response to the NCAA lawsuit is due Nov. 6, 2026.

This legal battle is the latest in a string of courtroom fights that leaves institutions and student-athletes uncertain as to who is and is not permitted on the playing field in the 2026-2027 academic year.

Considerations for Institutions

• In Ohio, the EO is permissive, not mandatory. The EO authorizes, but does not require, a school to roster Class of 2022 student-athletes. Any decision to play a Class of 2022 athlete is an institutional choice that carries legal and competitive risks.
   
• Weigh legal and institutional risks. Institutions should not assume that compliance with the EO will shield them from NCAA enforcement action. If the EO is invalidated, competition that has already completed may be exposed to NCAA penalties.
   
• Distinguish court orders from executive orders. The EO is subject to applicable court orders. Institutions should track the status of any injunction affecting student-athletes, including any stays and mandates.
   
• Anticipate potential action in other states. If the EO stands, other states may follow Ohio in challenging NCAA eligibility restrictions. Institutions should develop strategies for navigating potential conflicts between state directives and NCAA regulations.