Chief U.S. District Judge William L. Campbell Jr. denied Vanderbilt quarterback Diego Pavia a temporary restraining order Tuesday that would have extended his NCAA eligibility for the 2025-26 season, but the judge also said he’s prepared to set an expedited schedule for Pavia’s demand for a preliminary injunction to accomplish the same objective.
The ruling signals the judge is cognizant of Pavia’s concern that he needs to soon know if he’ll be able to play another season at Vanderbilt.
Pavia, 23, sued the NCAA last Friday, arguing a trio of rules that led the NCAA to count his two seasons at junior college New Mexico Military Institute against his NCAA eligibility and that limit JUCO transfers to a maximum of three years run afoul of antitrust law. Junior colleges aren’t part of the NCAA and Pavia insists it is unfair and illogical that JUCO years would count against his NCAA eligibility clock. For now, Pavia’s clock is set to expire at the conclusion of the 2024-25 season.
Pavia, who has thrown for 15 touchdowns with three interceptions for the Commodores this season, insists he’ll lose NIL deals and other professional opportunities if he cannot play another NCAA season.
Campbell wasn’t convinced a TRO was appropriate at this time. He noted that Pavia seeks prospective injunctive relief—the extension of his eligibility to play next fall—whereas TROs are generally supposed to preserve the status quo. The status quo is Pavia can continue to play out the 2024-25 football season. The 6-4 Commodores have two games left in the regular season.
The judge also noted that Pavia has known about the challenged bylaws for some time and that the NCAA is considering a rule change that would permit Pavia (and similarly situated JUCO transfers) a chance to play another season. Further, Campbell expressed unwillingness to grant a TRO ex parte, meaning granting an injunction when only one side (Pavia) has had a chance to present its side of the argument. Judges are often reluctant to grant TROs ex parte absent urgent, time-sensitive circumstances that do not appear at play in this case.
Campbell’s ruling does not mean he will side with the NCAA when he considers Pavia’s demand for a preliminary injunction, which is a longer lasting and more significant order. Campbell took no position on the merits of Pavia’s arguments. He also didn’t speculate as to how the NCAA might defend itself.
Pavia might be optimistic he’ll prevail given NCAA antitrust struggles in recent years. In February, another Tennessee federal district judge, Clifton Corker, issued a preliminary injunction against the NCAA in an antitrust case brought by Tennessee and Virginia over rules limiting NIL collectives. He did so in part because those rules constrained athletes’ economic opportunities. Campbell might view Pavia’s case in a similar light. Campbell might also be more inclined to entertain issuing an injunction as Pavia’s prospective 2025-26 season becomes a more time-sensitive issue.
Campbell wrote that he’s open to an expedited briefing schedule and will let Pavia and the NCAA confer on proposing a schedule.
In a statement, Pavia’s attorney, Ryan Downton, said “the most important part” of Campbell’s order is that the judge recognized “that the matter is urgent.” Downton further stressed Campbell’s “willingness to set an expedited hearing” as crucial.
