## Facts

- Muhammed Lasege, a Nigerian citizen, enrolled at the University of Louisville (U of L) for the 1999–2000 academic year intending to play Division I men’s basketball.
- U of L declared Lasege ineligible after determining he had signed agreements connected to professional basketball in Russia and received benefits inconsistent with amateur status.
- While in Russia, Lasege signed a three-year written agreement with a sports agency (“New Sport”) to represent him regarding playing for a professional club system in Moscow, with stated compensation (salary and incentives).
- The NCAA concluded Lasege had entered into professional contracts and received preferential benefits (including travel) that compromised amateur status.
- U of L sought reinstatement from the NCAA, arguing mitigating factors, including alleged ignorance of NCAA rules; the NCAA Student-Athlete Reinstatement Staff denied reinstatement under cited amateurism and agent bylaws and associated guidelines and precedent.
- U of L appealed within NCAA processes; the NCAA Division I Subcommittee on Student-Athlete Reinstatement affirmed, finding a clear intent to become a professional player.
- Lasege and U of L sued in Kentucky circuit court and obtained a temporary injunction (1) declaring Lasege eligible and (2) barring the NCAA from applying its restitution bylaw (Bylaw 19.8) to sanction participation occurring under the injunction.
- Lasege played during the 2000–2001 season while the injunction remained in effect.
- After the Court of Appeals declined interlocutory relief, the NCAA sought extraordinary relief in the Kentucky Supreme Court under CR 65.09 to vacate the temporary injunction.

## Issues

1. What limits apply to judicial interference with a voluntary association’s internal eligibility determinations, absent arbitrariness, bad faith, or illegality.
2. Whether the temporary injunction improperly substituted judicial judgment for the NCAA’s eligibility decision and failed Kentucky standards for preliminary injunctive relief.
3. Whether a court may enjoin the NCAA from applying its restitution rule (Bylaw 19.8) to future sanctions tied to participation enabled by a court order.

## Decision

- The Kentucky Supreme Court granted extraordinary relief under CR 65.09 upon a showing of extraordinary cause.
- The Court vacated the temporary injunction in its entirety.
- The Court permitted the NCAA’s eligibility determination to stand pending further proceedings, without judicially compelled eligibility.
- The Court lifted the prohibition against future application of NCAA Bylaw 19.8 to Lasege and U of L.

## Legal Principles

- Courts generally defer to decisions of voluntary associations made under agreed internal rules and procedures; judicial intervention is limited absent arbitrariness, capriciousness, bad faith, or violation of law or public policy.
- A temporary injunction may not be used to displace an association’s rule-based eligibility determination where the record does not show a substantial likelihood of success on claims meeting the limited grounds for intervention.
- A court may not preemptively bar a voluntary association from enforcing a generally applicable, preexisting internal enforcement rule against members who have agreed to be bound by it, including restitution-type sanctions for participation occurring under a court order later set aside.
- Extraordinary interlocutory relief under CR 65.09 is appropriate where a preliminary injunction materially alters the status quo and broadly restrains an association’s enforcement authority in a manner not justified on the preliminary record.

## Conclusion

The Kentucky Supreme Court vacated a temporary injunction that both compelled a student-athlete’s eligibility and insulated the athlete and university from NCAA restitution sanctions, holding that the preliminary record did not justify judicial displacement of the NCAA’s rule-based eligibility and enforcement decisions.


Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. Lasege, 53 S.W.3d 77 (Ky. 2001)