Some additional background on the lawsuit from when it was filed: www.on3.com/nil/news/lsu...

Importantly, the court did NOT answer this question, merely finding instead that it needs a full post-discovery administrative record to make a ruling here.

But this ruling keeps alive a lawsuit that will clearly have major, major impact on college sports.

Poa argued that the manner by which courts are asked by USCIS to interpret "temporarily and solely" is contradictory: permitting dual roles as "student-athletes" for F-1 visas while precluding it for P-1A visas. She argued that's arbitrary and capricious under the APA.

So Poa applied for a P-1A visa. She was denied on the basis that P-1A visaholders must be coming to to the US "solely for the purpose of [playing sports]." USCIS regulations hold that student-athletes come for education, not "solely for the purpose of [playing sports]."

The lawsuit is over a post-NIL gap that exists between F-1 (student) and P-1A ("internationally recognized athletes") visas.

Student-athletes have traditionally gotten F-1 visas, but F-1 regulations place significant limitations on holders' abilities to make money in the US.

Here's the full amicus brief: drive.google.com/file/d/1vR0K...

This is a rather significant turn of events, as the first time a state attorney general has weighed in on one of these cases. Though, of course, this particular office has gone after the NCAA in the recent past as a chief litigant in the Ohio lawsuit over transfer rules.

They could use you!! 😁

SFA states they lack enough athletes to field teams and reinstating them would cost $1 million. They take issue with the court's contention that their budget woes are self-inflicted by their choice to opt into the House settlement.

These motions are always kind of funny to me because they're essentially "Hey, we know you ruled this way, but you're wrong and you're going to get overturned on appeal so can we get a stay until that happens?"

The complaint is an intriguing read. It goes deeper into developing antitrust theories than others have, outlining "pride of place" (arguing the rules to attend NCAA schools over JUCOs) and essential facilities theories. (We'll see if that matters) drive.google.com/file/d/1ugqM...

Of note, this case is filed in the Northern District of West Virginia -- the same court that held the transfer portal "year-in-residence" rule to violate antitrust law. No word yet on whether the same judge (Judge John P. Bailey) will been assigned.

(Judge Boulware last year rejected a class action settlement of an antitrust case against the UFC, finding that the damages were not high enough to properly compensate the fighter-plaintiffs) www.espn.com/mma/story/_/...