National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Board of Regents
Justice White, acting alone as the Circuit Justice for the relevant appeals circuit, granted the NCAA a stay of lower-court rulings that had voided its college football television contracts as illegal price fixing, keeping the contracts in effect while the NCAA sought Supreme Court review.
White found it likely the Court would take the case, that the NCAA had a real chance of winning, and that letting the contracts collapse mid-season would cause far more harm than letting them continue a bit longer.
“I can say with confidence that I would vote to grant certiorari.”
White's assessment that the Supreme Court would likely agree to hear the NCAA's case.
How it got here: A federal trial court voided the NCAA's TV contracts as antitrust violations; the Tenth Circuit largely affirmed; the NCAA asked the Circuit Justice for a stay pending a certiorari petition.
The Case in Depth
What happened
The NCAA controlled how member colleges' football games were televised, pooling broadcast revenue from network contracts and distributing it among schools. Oklahoma and Georgia's athletic programs sued, arguing this scheme illegally fixed prices and restrained trade. A federal trial court agreed and voided the NCAA's TV contracts, and the Tenth Circuit largely affirmed that ruling.
The question before the Court
Could the NCAA keep its college-football television contracts in effect while it asked the Supreme Court to review an antitrust ruling against them?
The Court's answer
Yes — Justice White, sitting as Circuit Justice, granted the NCAA's request to stay the lower courts' judgments while the NCAA sought Supreme Court review. He found it likely the Court would grant certiorari, that at least three other Justices would probably agree, and that the case raised important nationwide antitrust questions.
He also found the balance of harms favored the NCAA: without a stay, the networks' contracts would become void and unenforceable, jeopardizing the entire 1983 football season for the NCAA and the many schools that wanted the arrangement to continue, whereas the two schools that sued would only lose the difference between NCAA payments and what they might earn independently. He also declined to require the NCAA to post a bond.
Curious how the Court got there? See the step-by-step legal reasoning →
Why it matters
The stay let the NCAA's existing deals with CBS, ABC, and Turner Broadcasting keep operating for the 1983 season, preserving payments to hundreds of member schools that depended on the shared broadcast revenue instead of having the entire season's TV arrangements thrown into legal limbo.
What changes now
The stay keeps the NCAA's broadcast contracts in force while it files a formal petition for certiorari. If the Supreme Court denies that petition, the stay automatically ends and the lower courts' rulings against the NCAA take effect. If the Court grants certiorari, the stay remains in place until the Court decides the case on the merits or otherwise resolves it.
What this does not decide
This order does not decide whether the NCAA's television plan actually violates antitrust law. It only pauses enforcement of the lower courts' rulings while the NCAA seeks full Supreme Court review, based on White's preliminary sense that the case might come out differently on the merits.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- A single Justice acting as Circuit Justice applies a three-part standard for an emergency stay pending certiorari: a reasonable probability that the Court will agree to hear the case, a fair prospect that the lower court's decision will be reversed, and a likelihood that irreparable harm will result absent a stay.
- White concluded certiorari was likely to be granted because the case involved a nationwide antitrust dispute over a major industry practice, and he believed at least three other Justices would share that view, satisfying the first part of the standard.
- Turning to the merits, White expressed doubt that the lower courts were correct to treat the NCAA's broadcast arrangement as illegal per se price fixing, and voiced some uncertainty whether the courts reached the right outcome even under the more flexible Rule of Reason analysis, satisfying the second part of the standard.
- White then weighed the relative harms: voiding the contracts would put the entire 1983 season's broadcast arrangements at risk for the NCAA and many schools that wanted the arrangement to continue, while the two schools that sued would suffer only a limited financial difference if a stay issued.
- Concluding that all three factors favored the NCAA, White found a stay warranted, and separately rejected the request to condition the stay on posting a bond, noting the Court of Appeals had allowed the same arrangement without bond during its own review.