Ben Gillard is a staff writer at Hoosier Huddle and a law student at IU’s Maurer School of Law specializing in Sports Law
On August 9th, Indiana Hoosiers safety Louis Moore added his name to the ever-growing list of FBS players who are suing the NCAA for another year of eligibility under the newly created “Diego Pavia Rule,” which grants a blanket waiver of eligibility to JUCO transfers. Moore, who spent 2020 and 2021 at Navarro Community College, had his eligibility waiver for a sixth year denied earlier this summer. As a result, he has sued the NCAA in the 134th District Court of Texas, seeking an injunction granting him an extra year of eligibility. Here’s what you need to know.
What are Injunctions and TROs?
It was announced on Tuesday that Moore has been granted an emergency hearing regarding his TRO application at 2 pm on Wednesday. This development has left many in Bloomington wondering what exactly a TRO is and what it will mean for Moore’s case.
A TRO, which stands for a “Temporary Restraining Order,” is a court order that immediately restricts or restrains a person from certain conduct, usually to prevent some immediate and irreparable harm from occurring. In Moore’s case he is arguing that if the TRO to prevent the NCAA from declaring him ineligible is not granted, he would lose the opportunity to get a “once-in-a-lifetime” NIL contract worth around $400,000 and miss out on the opportunity to “enhance his career by playing another year of Division I football.”
If the TRO is granted, it will stay in place until the legal proceedings have resolved. If, at the end of the proceedings, Judge Tillery rules in Moore’s favor, this will likely result in an injunction; that is, a permanent court order that restricts a party from certain conduct. In this case that would mean Moore would be eligible for the 2025 season.
What is Louis Moore’s Argument?
As stated above, Moore and his legal team will be relying heavily on the Pavia case, in which a federal judge issued an injunction against the NCAA. In that case, the judge stated that including Pavia’s tenure in junior college against his NCAA eligibility was a violation of federal antitrust law that was unfairly limiting his ability to generate revenue off of his name, image, and likeness. This ruling caused the NCAA to issue a blanket eligibility waiver to JUCO transfers who had situations similar to Pavia.
This is to say, players who are attempting to get another year of eligibility must adhere to the “five-year timeline of eligibility” in order to qualify for the waiver. The five-year timeline refers to the requirement that NCAA athletes cannot play more than four seasons over the span of five years. While Pavia was still within the five-year timeline, Moore had already exhausted his eligibility.
Moore’s legal team is attempting to make a similar argument to Pavia, except under the nearly identical Texas Antitrust Act rather than the Federal Antitrust statute. Specifically, the complaint states that,
“The effect of the Five-Year Rule is to discourage student-athletes from attending junior college to prepare for four-year college and to punish those who do so, even though junior colleges provide student-athletes with necessary academic and other opportunities… just as the student-athletes are deprived of the beneficial junior college experience, the junior colleges are deprived of elite athletes, reducing their ability to compete with NCAA schools.”
Another important case that Moore is relying upon is Elad v. NCAA, in which a judge granted Rutgers transfer Jett Elad an extra year of eligibility even though he was outside of the five-year rule. Specifically, Judge Quraishi ruled that the five-year rule went against antitrust law because D-I athletes have the power to negotiate and sign extensive NIL deals; they are part of a “labor market” and therefore subject to antitrust laws.
Further, Judge Quraishi highlighted the unique nature of FBS football, stating that an injunction was potentially the only recourse for Elad to complete his college career and attempt to make the NFL.”
Since the Pavia case was in the 6th Federal Circuit Court and the Elad case was in the 3rd Federal Circuit, neither case is binding law on Moore’s case in the Fifth Circuit. However, given the striking similarities between these two cases and Moore’s, there is a strong likelihood that Moore can use these cases as persuasive precedent to get Judge Tillery to grant a TRO and Injunction.
Will Louis Moore’s Lawsuit Be Successful?
This is an extremely difficult question to answer since most rulings regarding eligibility are very state and judge specific. Different states and even different judges in the same state have come to different decisions, with some granting injunctions and eligibility and others ruling in favor of the NCAA.
In terms of Moore’s case, he will be in front of Judge Dale Tillery of the 134th District Court of Texas. While he has not presided over very many collegiate athletics cases, Judge Tillery has a track record for ruling in favor of the “little guy,” including a stint on the Texas House of Representatives Committee on Pensions and Investments, where he helped to increase the pensions of retired teachers by 10%.
As such, Tillery may be more persuaded by Moore’s arguments of unfair bargaining power between him and the NCAA and could grant the TRO in response.
Update: Judge Tillery Grants TRO
At 2:57pm on Aug. 13th, Judge Dale Tillery granted Louis Moore a Temporary Restraining Order against the NCAA, allowing him to remain eligible until the conclusion of the legal proceedings. Judge Tillery has scheduled a full hearing for the matter for Aug. 27th, and has encouraged mediation between the parties leading up to the hearing.
What Happens Now?
This was a big first step for Moore and his legal team in the fight to remain eligible. With the TRO in place, the NCAA is now restrained from declaring Moore ineligible until the legal matter is fully resolved. As stated above, an injunction hearing is scheduled for Aug. 27th, where Judge Tillery will issue a ruling on Moore’s eligibility for the 2025 season.
Moore’s attorney spoke to ESPN following the ruling, saying, “They’re [NCAA] like a broken record … they keep making the same argument but expecting a different outcome. The NCAA is on the wrong side of this issue. … It violates the Sherman Antitrust Act, and they keep making the same argument, expecting a different result.”
Update (8/27): Judge Tillery Grants 14-Day Extension of TRO
Judge Tillery granted Louis Moore a 14-day extension of his TRO, which will remain in place until a follow-up hearing occurs on September 10th. Specifically, Judge Tillery found that as it currently stands, the case does not meet the requirements for a Temporary Injunction, and that the discovery process needs to be completed before he can issue a final ruling. As such, he has ordered the NCAA to comply with Moore’s request that the NCAA produce “all contracts with any Texas resident, including all contracts that would otherwise be performed in whole or in part in the State of Texas over the last 18 months.”
What Happens Now?
Basically, we do it all over again. Given the timing of the TRO extension, Indiana safety Louis Moore will be eligible to play in IU’s first two games on August 30th and September 6th. Moore’s eligibility after those first two games will depend on how the September 10th hearing goes. At that hearing, the Judge could issue a final ruling or could extend the TRO again while the case drags on. While IU definitely would like to have a definitive answer soon, the longer the TRO and the case are extended, the more games Moore will be eligible to play in, regardless of if he ultimately loses the lawsuit.
Update (9/9): NCAA and Louis Moore’s Legal Team Agree to Push Hearing to Sept. 24
As reported by the Indiana Daily Student, Louis Moore will be eligible for the next two games for the Hoosiers as both sides agreed to move the September 10th hearing to September 24th.
What Happens Now?
In typical “kick the can down the road” fashion lawyers use as stall tactics, both sides agreed to push the next hearing back two weeks and extended the TRO by that time. Moore will have two more games to play before the next hearing, which means he will have played in a third of the games this season. The longer this matter gets played out, the better for IU and Moore.
Update (9/24): Judge Tillery Grants Moore an Injunction
After an almost five-hour long hearing which ended without a decision, Judge Dale Tillery signed an order on Wednesday night granting Louis Moore an injunction which will allow him to remain eligible for the remainder of the 2025 season. Specifically, the injunction states that the NCAA is “enjoined from enforcing the Five-Year Rule as it applies to Moore’s time at a junior college” until after the conclusion of the trial, scheduled for January 29, 2026 (10 days after the conclusion of the FBS season).
What Happens Now?
Take a big sigh of relief Hoosiers, this long saga is over. This is perhaps the best possible outcome for both sides; Louis Moore will continue to play in the 2025 season and the NCAA can continue to hold firm on their position regarding the Five-Year Rule. This lawsuit will likely never see that January 29th trial, as the parties will most likely withdraw their complaints once the 2025 FBS season concludes. Moore gets to play, without establishing a precedent that the NCAA views as dangerous to their existence.