Charlie Baker said the June 8 injunction for Texas Tech quarterback Brendan Sorsby has already produced “downhill effects,” pointing to a South Carolina judge’s new order favoring Clemson receiver Tristan Smith.
Smith won the injunction after arguing the NCAA wrongly denied him an extra year of eligibility despite granting a 2025-26 blanket waiver to some former junior-college athletes; he said similarly situated players got relief.
Baker used the back-to-back rulings to renew his push for Congress to pass the Protect College Sports Act, saying the NCAA needs authority to enforce eligibility rules consistently across states and courts.
The broader legal impact may still be limited: legal analyst Michael McCann said the Texas order is non-final and carries no precedent outside Lubbock County, while the South Carolina judge stressed Smith’s case turned on its specific facts.
With courts overruling punishments for gambling, can the NCAA still protect the integrity of college sports?
As courts, Congress, and the President all intervene, who is actually in charge of college sports today?
NCAA vs. Brendan Sorsby: Gambling, Mental Health, and the Legal Battle Reshaping College Football Eligibility in 2026
Overview
On June 8, 2026, Judge Ken Curry issued a temporary injunction that reinstated Brendan Sorsby to play for Texas Tech, despite a two-game suspension. The court found that not allowing Sorsby to participate would cause probable, imminent, and irreparable injury. This decision has immediate and profound effects on both Texas Tech’s football program and the wider college athletics landscape. In response, the NCAA quickly announced plans to appeal, warning that the ruling could have damaging and far-reaching consequences for the integrity of college sports. The situation sets the stage for a major legal and policy battle.