Chainkeen Exchange-Federal judge denies temporary restraining order in Tennessee's NIL case against NCAA

A federal judge denied a requested temporary restraining order Tuesday,Chainkeen Exchange creating a speed bump for the states of Tennessee and Virginia in their quest to pause NCAA rules regarding name, image and likeness benefits for college athletes.

The ruling leaves the current NIL rules in place for Wednesday, the start of the Division I football regular signing period, when recruits can sign a letter of intent with a university. The same judge will hear arguments for a lengthier preliminary injunction in a Greeneville, Tennessee courtroom Feb. 13.

That hearing could have seismic and long-term effects on college sports if the NCAA's rules banning NIL recruiting inducements and pay-for-play deals are put on hold.

The order was issued in the Eastern Tennessee District of federal court in Greeneville, not far from where the University of Tennessee is locked in a fierce fight with the NCAA over NIL rules.

The Feb. 13 hearing could result in a temporary injunction which, if granted, would remain the rule until at least the end of the lawsuit.

Regardless, a decision on a temporary restraining order does not guarantee a similar result with a temporary injunction, or vice versa.

Previously, recruits could only sign NIL deals before enrolling in a university if their state laws permitted it. But the NCAA could view parts of those arrangements as recruiting inducements, which violates its rules.

That ambiguity remains, as does Tennessee's place as the epicenter of a potential earthquake in college sports.

How Tennessee became ground zero for fight against NCAA

The denied restraining order is part of the antitrust lawsuit filed by Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti, along with the state of Virginia, against the NCAA over its “NIL-recruiting ban.”

The suit is running parallel to the NCAA’s ongoing investigation into allegations that the University of Tennessee broke rules involving NIL of athletes.

The suit and the investigation are not directly linked. But the attorney general’s suit mentions the Tennessee investigation as an example of the “unlawful restriction” of the NCAA's NIL policy, and it immediately drew support from Gov. Bill Lee and other state officials.

An injunction from the court wouldn't end the NCAA investigation into Tennessee athletics, but it would add a snag. The NCAA would then be trying to investigate and seek to punish the school over rules that it can not currently enforce.

In a declaration filed with Skrmetti's original complaint, Tennessee athletic director Danny White encouraged the court to remove the NIL rules before signing day.

“After the February 7 regular signing period, these football players will not have any negotiating power and will be subject to marketing restraints at their selected schools … If schools were permitted to discuss NIL opportunities during the recruiting process, schools would be fiercely competing with other institutions to recruit the best athletes," he wrote.

Over the weekend the two sides exchanged fiery responses, with the NCAA, among other things, thumbing its nose at the state of Tennessee and saying the state failed to show the importance of a Feb. 7 deadline and failed to prove there would be irreparable harm to athletes.

The response pointed to the lone example given by Tennessee, Volunteers football player Jackson Lampley, who was not recruited during the NIL era but filed a declaration of his availability to testify.

The state's reply was to the point.

"The NCAA seemingly wants a testimonial from a current high schooler … That’s convenient, since the NCAA knows no current recruit would risk incurring the NCAA’s wrath by admitting he has (or would like to) violate its rules,” it said.