And hopefully we'll be able to retain due process for anyone on American soil as we move forward...
Judge postpones her final decision on whether to approve the House settlement.
- Thread starter retired711
- Start date
Exactly my point. Dreams of having RU win a national championship in any sport with just NJ athletes is exactly that, a dream. Most of these all star SL athletes will not play at the highest level that’s why you need the best athletes wherever they are: FL, VA, NY, Cal, Tex, etc.
The best teams have players from all over the US [and world].
GO RU
Here's yet another article about Monday's hearing. It emphasizes Judge Wilken's doubts about the proposed limits on third-party NIL. But without those limits, a school like Rutgers would be spending $20 million a year but would be at a disadvantage compared to schools whose fans are more willing to pay athletes to come. Judge Wilken has expressed that concern in the past; let's see what she does now.
https://www.si.com/fannation/name-i...limits-under-fire-judge-delays-final-approval
In her decision a decade ago in O'Bannon, Judge Wilken struck down the NCAA's NIL rules but "said some restrictions on paying players might still serve a limited purpose if they are necessary to maintain the popularity of major college football and basketball."
https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/11328442/judge-rules-ncaa-ed-obannon-antitrust-case
https://www.si.com/fannation/name-i...limits-under-fire-judge-delays-final-approval
In her decision a decade ago in O'Bannon, Judge Wilken struck down the NCAA's NIL rules but "said some restrictions on paying players might still serve a limited purpose if they are necessary to maintain the popularity of major college football and basketball."
https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/11328442/judge-rules-ncaa-ed-obannon-antitrust-case
Last edited:
At the risk of frightening everyone, here is a Wilkipedia article on Judge Wilken's background. But legal friends in the Bay Area tell me she is regarded as "left,' but not "crazy left" and she has been praised for moderation in her political activities at Berkeley.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claudia_Ann_Wilken
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claudia_Ann_Wilken
So now US legal bodies control world law and apply to everyone in the world?
C'mon.. yer smarter than that.
"person" was purposefully misleading. I doubt it would pass a SCOTUS constitutional test should some entity choose to make it an issue.Yes
The statute says "person" not citizen. Al is right.
"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."
20 U.S. Code § 1681 - Sex
www.law.cornell.edu
Seems to be a common problem of interpretation these days, like the due process clause applying to "persons" not citizens.
"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"
Logging back off. Have fun.
But the deal is that the entities who must adhere to Title IX do not want it to ONLY apply to US citizens because they want to be able to scour teh world for the best athletes.
Let me suggest the following.. is Title IX numbers had to apply ONLY to US citizens, they schollie counts of American men and women would have to balance. And if the institutions wanted to offer schollies to foreign students, they could still do so. Nothing would stop them and many would do so.
So, the end result would ultimately be MORE scholarships for Americans and fewer for foreign nationals but, overall, MORE women would get schollies unless the balance of foreign men and women would tilt toward the men. I think the huge football rosters would prevent that.
Yeah.. the UN is all over this in all those nations that don't even allow education for women past grammar school. Hell, big-money competitive sports in college is a US thing exclusively.
As I pointed out above, the Constitution uses "person"," not "citizen," when it says that no "person" may be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. And so the courts have always held that the Constitution protects people other than citizens -- even persons who are not here legally are entitled to due process of law. So Congress did nothing unconstitutional in writing Title IX to apply to "persons."
Title IX is not in the US Constitution. It is a federal law. As such, it could amended to rule out counting foreign students towards Title IX counts.
That's probably true, just as foreign students are not eligible for Federal financial aid. But you were saying in the passage I quoted that it might be unconstitutional for Title IX to protect non-citizens-- and the purpose of my response was to show that you are wrong. You evidently agree with me because you have now totally changed your line of argument.
Last edited:
It has never been ruled on in that way and I never said it had. I said, given the right challenge, it might be deemed so.
Knight Shift countered my argument with text directly from Title IX.. which is a federal law, not an amendment to teh Constitution:
"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."
(I should add here:; "on the basis of sex" is the key... an adjustment to that would be on the basis of nationality, not sex. Furthermore, one could easily argue that all the cutting of men's sports and scholarships to balance them with adding women sports did exactly that.. exclude access on the basis of sex)
Then he quotes from the 14th Amendment.. which is part of the Constitution
"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"
But these two elements are not ONE thing.. one thought, one rule. Just because they both use the same word.. PERSON.. doesn't mean Constitutional protections apply directly to what Title IX permits.
Example: Princeton has over 20% or so foreign nationals as students. What if an Administration decides that federal dollars should not go to any school for any purpose that has more than 5% foreign nationals?
Does the Constitution prevent that because it uses the word "persons"?
This is all just a thought exercise. But still maintain there is a national interest, a very tiny and relatively unimportant one.. in adjusting US Law to benefit US Citizens BEFORE foreign nationals.
Last edited:
Has it really only been 15 years? I don't usually agree with Robert Reich, but I tend to agree here. . . . .
I don't want to get us afield here, but the Supreme Court has held for over a century that corporations are "persons" within the meaning of the 14th Amendment's Due Process clause.
Not trying to hijack the thread, but I figured it out. RR statement is incorrect, as he was trying to hard to be hyperbolic.
You are 100% right- 1886. RR was referring to the Citizens United case of 2010, which bootstrapped off of Buckley vs. Valeo to say corporations have free speech rights because corporations are persons.
How the 14th Amendment Made Corporations Into 'People' | HISTORY
Under U.S. law, some essential rights of the 14th amendment belong not only to American citizens, but also corporations—thanks to a few key Supreme Court cases and a controversial legal concept known as corporate personhood.
I'm certainly not an expert on Citizens United, but it held that the restrictions on corporations that were unconstitutional were also unconstitutional as to unions -- which generally are not incorporated and so aren't "persons" in the sense that corporations are. So I'm not sure that regarding corporations as "persons" was important to the result.Not trying to hijack the thread, but I figured it out. RR statement is incorrect, as he was trying to hard to be hyperbolic.
You are 100% right- 1886. RR was referring to the Citizens United case of 2010, which bootstrapped off of Buckley vs. Valeo to say corporations have free speech rights because corporations are persons.
How the 14th Amendment Made Corporations Into 'People' | HISTORY
Under U.S. law, some essential rights of the 14th amendment belong not only to American citizens, but also corporations—thanks to a few key Supreme Court cases and a controversial legal concept known as corporate personhood.www.history.com
According to a story in The Athletic, the settling parties have submitted their brief defending the settlement (in particular the roster limits that will cost walk-ons roster spots). The objectors now have a day to respond, Judge Wilkens will then decide whether to approve the settlement. The link, unfortunately, is behind a pay wall.
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6280682/2025/04/15/house-v-ncaa-settlement-roster-limits/
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6280682/2025/04/15/house-v-ncaa-settlement-roster-limits/
Thanks for posting all of these. Judge Wilken told the parties that they should phase in roster limits and they instead are thumbing their nose at her. We'll see if she is willing to tell them that she won't approve the settlement unless they do as she asked.
As for antitrust liability -- the settling parties have acknowledged that they know the settlement does not necessarily protect them against another private antitrust law suit or an antitrust law suit brought by the Federal government. Any salary cap can be challenged (maybe successfully, maybe not) on antitrust grounds. That's why we can expect the NCAA to try to get Congress to write the settlement into law.
Latest posts
-
-
What does the Mens Hoop Roster look like as of today (04-16-2025) ?- Latest: -RUFAN4LIFE-
-
