## Facts

- Lonnie J. Shelton was a student-athlete who played basketball at Oregon State University (OSU).
- While still eligible to play college basketball, Shelton signed a contract to play professional basketball with an American Basketball Association (ABA) team.
- An NCAA eligibility rule provided that a student who “has ever signed a contract to play” professional sports in a given sport is ineligible to compete in intercollegiate athletics in that sport, regardless of the contract’s enforceability.
- OSU declared Shelton ineligible under the NCAA rule.
- Shelton alleged the professional contract was unenforceable because it was procured through fraud and undue influence; litigation over the contract’s validity was pending separately.
- Shelton filed a federal action challenging the NCAA rule on equal protection grounds and sought temporary relief to allow him to play during the season while the contract dispute proceeded.

## Issues

1. Whether an NCAA rule making a student-athlete ineligible for signing a professional contract, regardless of enforceability, violates the Equal Protection Clause.
2. Whether Shelton showed sufficient likelihood of success on the merits to justify a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the rule.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s order granting a preliminary injunction.
- The court held the NCAA rule did not violate equal protection under rational-basis review.
- The court concluded the rule was rationally related to the legitimate objective of preserving amateurism in intercollegiate athletics.
- The court accepted that using signing (rather than enforceability) as the trigger is administratively workable and avoids case-by-case litigation over contract validity.

## Legal Principles

- When a challenged classification does not implicate a fundamental right or suspect class, equal protection review asks only whether the rule rationally furthers a legitimate purpose.
- Preserving amateurism in college athletics is a legitimate institutional objective.
- A bright-line eligibility rule keyed to signing a professional contract can be rational even if overinclusive, including where some signed contracts may later be found void or voidable.
- For preliminary injunctive relief, a plaintiff must show a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits; failure to establish an equal protection violation defeats that showing.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that the NCAA could treat the act of signing a professional contract as a conclusive marker of ineligibility, even if enforceability is disputed, because the classification rationally serves the legitimate goal of maintaining amateurism; accordingly, the preliminary injunction preventing enforcement was reversed.


Shelton v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 539 F.2d 1197 (9th Cir. 1976)