Haywood v. National Basketball Assn.
Headline: A college basketball player can keep playing for Seattle as the Court blocks NBA sanctions during an antitrust fight over draft rules that restrict young players and affect playoffs.
Holding:
- Allows Haywood to play and blocks NBA sanctions during litigation.
- Preserves playoff integrity while courts decide eligibility issues.
- Keeps antitrust challenge over draft rules moving to trial.
Summary
Background
A college basketball player (Haywood), the Seattle club that signed him, and the National Basketball Association (NBA) are in conflict over the league’s rule that a college player cannot be drafted until four years after his high school class graduates. Haywood played on the 1968 Olympic team, then went to college. Before graduating he signed with the rival American Basketball Association but later repudiated that contract when he turned 21, claiming fraud. He then signed with Seattle less than four years after his high school class graduated, which the NBA said made him ineligible under its draft rule. The NBA threatened to disallow the Seattle contract and punish the team, so Haywood sued, claiming the league’s conduct was a group boycott that violates the federal antitrust law. A district judge temporarily barred the NBA from enforcing sanctions and allowed Haywood to play, finding he would suffer serious and irreparable harm if barred.
Reasoning
The core question was whether the NBA could lawfully enforce its draft rule and punish Seattle for signing Haywood, or whether that conduct amounted to an unlawful group boycott. The NBA appealed and the Ninth Circuit stayed the district court’s injunction, weighing the status quo and the looming playoffs. Because the playoffs were about to begin and the equities favored preserving the district court’s protection, the Circuit Justice examined the record and, citing the All Writs Act (28 U.S.C. §1651(a)), reinstated the preliminary injunction so Haywood could play while the antitrust case proceeds to trial in the Central District of California. The opinion notes that basketball does not share baseball’s special exemption from antitrust laws.
Real world impact
The immediate effect is that Haywood may play for Seattle and the NBA may not impose sanctions while the lawsuit continues. The ruling is temporary and does not decide the final antitrust question, so the ultimate legality of the draft rule will be resolved at trial.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?