NCAA Prevails in Appeal of Junior College Eligibility Case (1)

The NCAA won an appeal to reverse an injunction allowing Rutgers football player Jett Elad to play this season in a suit over the organization’s eligibility rules surrounding an athlete’s time at a junior college.

The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit said in a Tuesday decision that Elad failed to take into account changes to the college athletics market related to compensation since the US Supreme Court’s 2021 decision in NCAA v. Alston.

“And when markets change, so too must antitrust analyses,” Judge Tamika Montgomery-Reeves wrote for the three-judge panel.

The appeals court sent the matter back to the US District Court for the District of New Jersey for further proceedings. The precedential ruling places a higher burden on plaintiffs making similar claims and means that Elad can’t finish out the remainder of his season at Rutgers.

The NCAA said in a statement Tuesday it “will continue to defend its eligibility rules against repeated attempts to rob high school students of the opportunity to compete in college.”

To date, plaintiffs have filed 44 eligibility lawsuits against the NCAA, of which 21 preliminary injunctions have been denied while eight have been granted.

“We are thankful the Third Circuit Court of Appeals today reversed the district court’s decision,” the organization stated. “The NCAA and its member schools are making changes to deliver more benefits to student-athletes, but the patchwork of state laws and inconsistent, conflicting court decisions make partnering with Congress essential to provide stability for all college athletes.”

Market Definition

The Third Circuit ruled that the district court failed to define a relevant market, a threshold issue in any antitrust case.

It ordered the lower court to conduct a relevant market analysis and tease out the changing market realities that it identified in its opinion.

“Rule-of-reason analyses under Section 1 of the Sherman Act require a well-defined relevant market and cannot rely on antiquated market definitions accepted on different evidence and in a different posture,” the appellate court said.

In September, the Third Circuit judges expressed skepticism of Elad’s antitrust claims and questioned the market analysis.

‘Juco’ Claims

Elad is a former “juco” athlete who claimed the NCAA’s rules unlawfully restrict a student-athlete’s eligibility to play four seasons within a five-year period.

Time spent competing in junior colleges, which are non-NCAA institutions, is counted toward total eligibility time in Division I. Playing at the D-I level for as long as possible is desirable because teams of that caliber attract the most money and talent.

Elad argued that the NCAA’s rules violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act and that he would be subject to irreparable harm if he weren’t able to play an additional season.

In April, Judge Zahid N. Quraishi of the US District Court for the District of New Jersey halted the NCAA from enforcing the eligibility rule as applied to Elad’s season at a junior college.

Quraishi found the juco rule to be commercial in nature because it limits who is eligible to play as well as the ability to negotiate a name, image, and likeness agreement. The NCAA appealed.

A separate but similar case was brought by former juco athlete and current Vanderbilt quarterback Diego Pavia, who was granted an injunction by a lower court allowing him to play this season.

The Sixth Circuit on Oct. 1 tossed the NCAA’s appeal in that because the organization’s separate waiver allowing Pavia to play made the appeal moot.

Elad didn’t receive a similar waiver.

The NCAA didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Montgomery-Reeves was joined in the Third Circuit opinion by Judges Stephanos Bibas and Thomas Ambro.

Elad is represented by Marino Tortorella & Boyle PC. The NCAA is represented by Wilkinson Stekloff and Holland & Knight LLP.

The case is Elad v. NCAA, 3d Cir., No. 25-01870, 11/25/25.