Supreme Court Report

Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

American Athletic Conference, et al. v. Shawne Alston, et al.

Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 19-15566, 19-15662 · judgment May 18, 2020

Decided · June 21, 2021
Pre-decision estimate: 19% cert probability (95% interval 15%–25%)

Before the decision, about 4.7× the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for counsel who has won certiorari before, a Ninth Circuit decision below, and a circuit split argued in the petition.

Question presented

Consolidated with 20-512. The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) is a nonprofit association that sets the rules governing college athletics, including the rules limiting the payments that colleges may make to student- athletes. As this Court has explained, "the NCAA seeks to market a particular brand of [sports]-college [sports]. The identification of this 'product' with an academic tradition differentiates college [sports] from and makes it more popular than professional sports to which it might otherwise be comparable," and "[i]n order to preserve the character and quality of the 'product,' athletes must not be paid, must be required to attend class, and the like." NCAA v. Board of Regents of Univ. of Okla., 468 U.S. 85, 101-102 (1984). In this case, however, the district court held that the NCAA student-athlete payment limits violate the Sherman Act. It imposed a detailed injunction prescribing the types of payments that colleges must be permitted to make to student-athletes, retained jurisdiction, and directed the parties to seek guidance from the court before making certain future changes to NCAA rules. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that the NCAA could have used less restrictive rules to achieve its procompetitive goal. The question presented is: Whether the Sherman Act authorizes a court to subject the product-defining rules of a joint venture to full Rule of Reason review, and to hold those rules unlawful if, in the court's view, they are not the least restrictive means that could have been used to accomplish their procompetitive goal.

Counsel of record

For petitioner
Andrew John Pincus
Mayer Brown LLP

For respondent
Steve W. Berman
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP

Case

Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference

Amicus briefs
3 cert-stage

Related
Vide, 20-512

Argument & decision

Argued March 31, 2021 — Seth P. Waxman · Jeffrey L. Kessler. Audio and transcript

Decided June 21, 2021. Opinion by Gorsuch.

Proceedings

  1. Jul 23 2021
    JUDGMENT ISSUED.
  2. Jun 21 2021
    Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Gorsuch, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Kavanaugh, J., filed a concurring opinion. VIDED.
  3. Mar 31 2021
    Argued. For petitioners: Seth P. Waxman, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Jeffrey L. Kessler, New York, N. Y.; and Elizabeth B. Prelogar, Acting Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) VIDED.
  4. Feb 22 2021
    CIRCULATED.
  5. Feb 04 2021
    Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit.
  6. Feb 04 2021
    Record from the U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit is electronic and located on Pacer. Part of the record is SEALED and has been electronically filed.
  7. Feb 01 2021
    SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, March 31, 2021. VIDED.
  8. Dec 16 2020
    Petition GRANTED. The petition for a writ of certiorari in No. 20-512 is granted. The cases are consolidated, and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument. VIDED.
  9. Dec 16 2020
    Because the Court has consolidated these cases for briefing and oral argument, future filings and activity in the cases will now be reflected on the docket of No. 20-512. Subsequent filings in these cases must therefore be submitted through the electronic filing system in No. 20-512. Each document submitted in connection with one or more of these cases must include on its cover the case number and caption for each case in which the filing is intended to be submitted. Where a filing is submitted in fewer than all of the cases, the docket entry will reflect the case number(s) in which the filing is submitted; a document filed in all of the consolidated cases will be noted as “VIDED.”
  10. Nov 24 2020
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/11/2020.
  11. Nov 24 2020
    Reply of petitioner The Big Ten Conference, Inc. filed. (Distributed)
  12. Nov 18 2020
    Brief amici curiae of Antitrust Law And Business School Professors filed.
  13. Nov 18 2020
    Brief amici curiae of Antitrust Economists filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
  14. Nov 13 2020
    Brief amicus curiae of Sam C. Ehrlich filed. VIDED.
  15. Nov 09 2020
    Brief of respondents Shawne Alston, et al. in opposition filed. VIDED.
  16. Oct 15 2020
    Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 19, 2020)