The NCAA can appeal Brendan Sorsby’s shocking reinstatement, but Texas law isn’t on their side

Texas Tech quarterback Brendan Sorsby has won a temporary injunction in his fight with the NCAA, and under the terms of the order issued by Judge Ken Curry in the District Court of Texas for Lubbock County, he is eligible to play for the Red Raiders during the 2026 season. Sorsby sought the injunction after the NCAA stripped the quarterback of his remaining collegiate eligibility due to multiple violations of the governing body’s gambling policy.

However, there are some caveats to that statement. Several, in fact.

The decision comes in the wake of a hearing held in the District Court of Texas for Lubbock County at the start of June. As outlined in Judge Curry’s four-page order, finding that Sorsby would suffer “a probable, imminent, and irreparable injury” if his eligibility was not reinstated, Judge Curry held that Sorsby “demonstrated a probable right to the relief he seeks on his claims for breach of contract, declaratory judgment, breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing, and breach of fiduciary duty.”

Judge Curry further ruled that Sorsby “demonstrated that the balance of equities is in his favor because of the hardship he would face in the absence of a temporary injunction.”

In the ruling, Judge Curry declared that the NCAA is barred from:

1. Prohibiting [Sorsby] from practicing, playing, or otherwise participating on Texas Tech’s football team for the 2026 football season.
2. Enforcing its Bylaw 12.9.4.2 (Rule of Restitution) against [Sorsby], Texas Tech, any affiliate of Texas Tech, any university that competes against Texas Tech during the 2026 college football season, or any affiliate of any such university for complying with, and relying on this Order.

First, Sorsby — through his attorneys — sought a temporary injunction, which Judge Curry granted. As Judge Curry noted in the order, the temporary injunction will be in place until the final judgment in this matter, and “until a full trial on the merits of this matter” is conducted.

Second, Judge Curry imposed six conditions that Sorsby is required to meet during the period of time the temporary injunction is in place. These include: (1) Commencing and continuing clinical counseling with a credentialed provider, focusing on relapse prevention, (2) Commencing and participating in peer support through Gamblers Anonymous or a comparable aid community, (3) Commencing and continuing treatment for Adjustment Disorder with Anxiety, to address the “underlying anxiety that served as the primary driver of [Sorsby’s] gambling behavior,” (4) Commencing and participating in athlete-specific recovery resources, (5) Not participating in game-day activities for the first two games of the Texas Tech season, and (6) Serving on the NCAA a report detailing compliance with the five previous conditions, on or before the fifth of each month during the order, to cover the previous month of compliance.

Failure of Sorsby to comply with those conditions would allow the NCAA to “apply for emergency relief from this injunction.”

The NCAA does have the right to appeal this ruling (more on that in a moment), but for now, Sorsby is reinstated, with a two-game suspension. That would mean the transfer quarterback would miss the season opener against Abilene Christian, and the game against Oregon State on September 12.

In response to Judge Curry’s order, the NCAA released this brief statement:

“The NCAA strongly disagrees with the court’s ruling in Sorsby’s case and is deeply concerned about the damaging, far-reaching and broadly destabilizing ramifications of this outcome — which undermines and corrupts the integrity of sports. The NCAA is committed to supporting student-athlete mental health but must continue to aggressively defend against actions that defraud college athletics and threaten competitive integrity, such as betting on one’s own sport.”

As to whether the NCAA would appeal this temporary injunction, it is worth noting that the governing body would face a significant hurdle with such an appeal. Specifically, the standard of review from the appellate court. In 1919 the Texas Legislature codified the right to an appeal of a temporary injunction, declaring that a party “may appeal from an interlocutory order of a district court, county court at law, statutory probate court, or county court that … grants or refuses a temporary injunction or grants or overrules a motion to dissolve a temporary injunction.” See Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code Section 51.014(a)(4).

So while the NCAA has the right to an appeal, the problem they will face is the standard of review. Appeals of these decisions are reviewed on one standard: Abuse of discretion. Judges in temporary injunction cases are given substantial deference in deciding those matters, and to overturn the order in this case, the NCAA must convince the appellate court that Judge Curry abused that discretion, and that the ruling was arbitrary, capricious, or failed to apply the law correctly in reaching the decision.

Texas courts have defined this standard as follows: A trial court abuses its discretion if its decision is “arbitrary, unreasonable, and without reference to [any] guiding [rules and] principles” or is “so arbitrary and unreasonable as to amount to a clear and prejudicial error of law.” See Mercedes-Benz Credit Corp. v. Rhyne, 925 S.W. 2d 664 (Texas 1996) and Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Texas 1992).

To find such an abuse, the reviewing court must “determine that the facts and circumstances presented [to the trial judge] ‘extinguish any discretion [or choice] in the matter.’” See F.A. Richard & Assoc. v. Millard, 856 S.W.3d 419 (Texas App. 1993). The appellate court cannot simply substitute its own judgment for that of the trial court.

When reviewing such a case, the appellate court asks two questions: Did the trial court have sufficient information to exercise such discretion, and did the trial court err in the application of that discretion?

Simply put, an appeal by the NCAA of this ruling, given the great deference appellate courts show trial courts in these matters, seems unlikely to succeed.

Still, the ruling has many wondering if the NCAA should still appeal, even given the difficult standard the governing body would face with such an appeal:

Plus, there is the matter of precedent. If the NCAA ultimately loses on this matter, it would essentially become the “first and only American sports league to allow an athlete to compete after betting on his own games,” a point the NCAA argued in front of Judge Curry.

Sorsby admitted to placing wagers of at least $90,000 on more than 9,000 bets during his time in college, including 40 bets of at least $850 on Indiana football while he was a member of the Hoosiers. Under NCAA rules, the penalty for a player gambling on their own team is permanent ineligibility.

The NCAA could appeal and argue that the fact Sorsby admitted to those bets, in clear violation of stated NCAA rules, and yet has been reinstated under Judge Curry’s order amounts to a decision that is “legally unreasonable in the factual-legal context in which it [was] made.” See Landon v. Jean-Paul Budinger, Inc., 724 S.W.2d 931. That language has been held in Texas to overturn a trial court’s decision under the abuse of discretion standard.

Given the precedent set by this decision, the NCAA likely appeals.

But whether they succeeded on that appeal is a different story.

And while the underlying case will ultimately go to trial, that might not occur until after the 2026 season is completed.

So, for now at least, Sorsby is back on the Red Raiders for the upcoming season.

#NCAA #appeal #Brendan #Sorsbys #shocking #reinstatement #Texas #law #isnt #side