Skip to content

O”Bannon v. NCAA

Petition for certiorari denied on October 3, 2016

Linked with:

Docket No. Argument Opinion Vote Author Term
15-1167 N/A N/A N/A N/A OT 2016

Issue: (1) Whether, in determining an appropriate remedy for a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act under the "Rule of Reason," a court may treat the restraint itself " here, the agreement among the NCAA and its members prohibiting college athlete compensation, or what the NCAA calls "amateurism" " as a legitimate procompetitive effect: and (2) whether, after finding a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act under the Rule of Reason, a court is restricted to awarding relief that the plaintiff proves is "virtually as effective" as the restraint in serving its alleged purposes, "without significantly increased cost."

SCOTUSblog Coverage

DateProceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
03/14/2016Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 18, 2016)
04/13/2016Order extending time to file response to petition to and including May 18, 2016.
05/13/2016Brief of respondent National Collegiate Athletic Association in opposition filed.
05/26/2016Reply of petitioner Edward C. O'Bannon, Jr., Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated filed. (Distributed)
05/31/2016DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 16, 2016.
06/06/2016Rescheduled.
07/20/2016DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 26, 2016.
10/03/2016Petition DENIED.