Home » News analysis »
The Southeastern Conference (SEC), which was founded in 1933 and sets rules for collegiate athletic competitions, consists of 15 public institutions of higher education and one private institution (Vanderbilt University), which are also affiliated with the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). In June 2026, the NCAA amended its rules to increase the eligibility of athletes from four to five years of collegiate competition, but exempting members of the 2022 class.
LSU challenges SEC policy
After the policy change, Louisiana State University (LSU) and its head football coach Lane Kiffin recruited a number of collegiate players, including Dae’Quan Wright and Zxavian Harris, who had previously played for Coach Kiffen at the University of Mississippi (Ole Miss) and who had signed up with professional football leagues but indicated that they now wanted to return to college. This violated SEC policies, which were designed to maintain a clear separation between college and professional athletics.
Some of these athletes from the 2022 class secured an injunction against the SEC that would have allowed them to play. The SEC responded by filing an action for declaratory and injunctive relief that is based on the argument that playing such athletes would violate the SEC’s “First Amendment right of expressive association.”
SEC’s First Amendment arguments
The SEC argued that it “was founded on the principle that intercollegiate athletics serves an educational purpose,” and that it “aims to facilitate and assist its member institutions in maintaining intercollegiate athletic programs compatible with the highest standards of education and competitive sports.” Each institution votes on SEC policies in a system designed to model “shared governance.”
These policies have included adherence to NCAA Bylaw 12.2.4, which specifies that a student athlete “shall not enter into any kind of agreement to compete in professional athletics, either orally or in writing, regardless of the legally enforceability of that agreement.” It explains that the rule, which it considers to be related to its educational mission, has a number of objectives. These include promoting “competitive fairness” by restricting participation by those who have had professional training; preserving “opportunities for high school student-athletes and current college athletes”; promoting “roster stability” and “settled expectations”; promoting “competitive equity and fair competition”; and preserving “the integrity of college sports” based on the principle “that athletics are an integral part of the academic experience.”
In making its First Amendment arguments, the SEC said that allowing LSU to play professionally trained players would force it “to associate its competitions, its brand, its championships, and its media properties with conduct the Conference has expressly, unanimously, and publicly rejected and repudiated since its inception.” Citing the cases of Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees (1984) and Wooley v. Maynard (1977), the SEC argued that the Constitution supported not only the right to associate, but also “the corresponding right not to associate.” It further quoted the decision in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000), which ruled that forcing an organization to accept members (in the SEC case, presumably players) whose behavior is antithetical to their standards, “may impair the ability of the group to express those views, and only those views, that it intends to express.” This included maintaining “the distinction between college and professional sports.”
Perhaps as a result of this suit, in its opening football game of the 2026 fall season, LSU, which still secured a conclusive win against Clemson University, did not list or play the contested players on its roster. This decision may have also been influenced by claims by Clemson officials that if LSU played these individuals, the university might be breaching its contract with Clemson for the game, which prohibited the use of ineligible players.
Context
There has been considerable discussion of legal aspects of college and university athletics and of proposed congressional legislation in light of the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in NCAA v. Alston (2021). It had already arguably weakened the distinction between collegiate and professional athletics by lifting scholarship caps for student athletics as violations of existing anti-trust laws and by allowing school to compensate athletics for name, image, and likeness (NIL) rights, which might in some cases exceed professional salaries.
It remains unclear to the author of this essay whether the SEC might have the power to enforce its rule either by the use of contracts such as the one Clemson cited or by expelling LSU or other offending schools from the association. The author is also uncertain whether this would limit their eligibility to compete in the absence of membership in a similar association.
It also seems possible that courts might allow for an exception for athletes in the 2022 class while enforcing it against others, in which case this would be a one-year only problem, albeit with continuing implications for the scope of the First Amendment right of association.
John R. Vile is a political science professor and dean of the Honors College at Middle Tennessee State University.
SEE ALSO
FOR FURTHER READING
- Clemson officials notify LSU it may be breaching contract if it plays former pro players Saturday. Ros Dellenger, Yahoo!sports. September 4, 2026.
- Judge grants injunction to pro players seeking LSU return. Dan Murphy ESPN. September 3, 2026.
- SEC sues LSU, alleging a coordinated push to recruit ex-pro athletes in defiance of rules. AP. September 3, 2026.
- The Southeastern Conference v. Louisiana State University, Complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama Southern Division. Filed on September 3, 2026.
- SEC seeks authority to expel LSU. Mike Florio, September 8, 2026, NBC Sports.