Big 12 Conference Files Federal Lawsuit After Judge Allows Sorsby to Play
Big 12 sued Texas Tech and Texas AG after a Texas judge blocked NCAA's player ban.
Why it matters: This legal battle questions NCAA’s authority on player eligibility and sports integrity. Legal professionals should watch how courts balance state power and sports governance in gambling-related cases.
- June 8, 2026: Texas Judge Ken Curry issued an injunction letting QB Brendan Sorsby play with a two-game suspension.
- Sorsby was permanently banned by NCAA for betting on his own team’s games.
- On June 15, Big 12 filed a 47-page lawsuit against Texas Tech and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.
- NCAA is appealing and warns the ruling risks damaging college sports’ integrity.
On June 8, 2026, Texas District Judge Ken Curry issued a temporary injunction that allowed Texas Tech quarterback Brendan Sorsby to play despite a permanent NCAA ban stemming from gambling violations. The injunction requires Sorsby to serve a two-game suspension for the contests against Abilene Christian on September 5 and Oregon State on September 12. The injunction temporarily overrides the NCAA’s permanent ineligibility ruling. The Los Angeles Times reported.
Sorsby admitted to placing at least 40 bets on Texas Tech games while playing at Indiana, violating NCAA bylaws that impose a lifetime ban for such gambling offenses. The NCAA expressed strong opposition to the court’s decision, stating it threatens "to undermine and corrupt the integrity of sports." The association has filed an appeal. Inside Higher Ed noted.
Following the injunction, the Big 12 Conference escalated the dispute by filing a 47-page federal lawsuit in the Northern District of Texas on June 15. The suit targets Texas Tech University and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. Big 12 seeks to uphold its authority over player eligibility rules and prevent what it views as improper interference by state officials. Paxton has threatened fines against Big 12 for sanctioning Texas Tech or Sorsby, citing alleged violations of state and federal antitrust laws. CBS Sports reported.
This dispute reflects tensions between state courts and sports governance bodies over who can enforce eligibility rules—especially concerning athlete gambling violations. The permanent ineligibility ruling typically means a player is banned indefinitely from college sports, but the injunction is a court order temporarily blocking enforcement of that ban.
The case continues to draw scrutiny over how legal challenges to NCAA rules may reshape college sports governance and regulatory boundaries.
By the numbers:
- 40+ bets placed by Sorsby — led to NCAA permanent ban
- June 8, 2026 — injunction granted by Judge Ken Curry
- June 15, 2026 — Big 12 files 47-page federal lawsuit
Yes, but: There is uncertainty about the legal grounds for the injunction as the court did not clearly explain its rationale, creating ambiguity in how enforcement of NCAA rules may be challenged in state courts.
What's next: The NCAA is appealing the injunction and the federal lawsuit will proceed, potentially setting precedent on the balance between state authority and NCAA governance over athlete eligibility.