A class of Division I college athletes, known as the "Class of 2022," sought a preliminary injunction in 2026 to prevent the NCAA from applying its new Five-Year Eligibility Rule to them. The case centers on the NCAA's refusal to extend the rule's additional season of competition to athletes who had already completed four seasons under the association's prior eligibility rules. Under the NCAA's former Bylaw 12.6, a Division I athlete was permitted four seasons of competition within a five-year window. The Five-Year Eligibility Rule changed that rule, allowing athletes who enroll no later than the academic year following their nineteenth birthday to compete in five seasons within five years, while eliminating all but three eligibility waivers—pregnancy, religious mission, and military service. The rule did not extend the additional season to athletes in the Class of 2022, who began competing in the 2022–2023 season and used four seasons of competition in four years, leaving them barred from a fifth season available to the classes that followed. The plaintiffs alleged that the loss of a fifth season also deprived them of name, image, and likeness (NIL) compensation, national exposure, professional development opportunities, and, for some athletes, their athletic scholarships. Named plaintiffs included Dimond Loosli, a baseball player who stated that a fifth season would allow him to further develop his skills, earn greater NIL compensation, and pursue a professional career, and Abigail Jeffries, who stated that the rule would cost her her athletic scholarship. On July 31, 2026, Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney certified the class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The certified class consists of all persons in the United States who began competing in NCAA Division I athletics in the 2022–2023 season, completed four years of eligibility under the NCAA's prior rules by the end of the 2025–2026 season, and are barred from a fifth season by the Five-Year Eligibility Rule. The plaintiffs' claim arises under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. They argued that the Five-Year Eligibility Rule is a commercial restraint on the market for Division I athlete labor and is unreasonable under the rule of reason. The court's analysis proceeded in three steps. First, the plaintiffs argued the rule has a substantial anticompetitive effect, contending that removing an entire class of athletes from the labor market reduces output, wages, and quality, supported by evidence that many rosters sat below their caps, with thousands of open spots across teams. Second, the NCAA offered procompetitive justifications, including that the rule preserves opportunities for incoming freshmen and protects the reliance interests of athletes entering the following season. The court found the NCAA's argument insufficient, citing the Supreme Court's holding in Board of Regents that "good motives will not validate an otherwise anticompetitive practice." Third, the plaintiffs argued that the NCAA could achieve its objectives through less restrictive means, such as extending eligibility waivers to the affected class. The court also rejected the NCAA's threshold defenses, finding that it had personal jurisdiction over the NCAA, which governs every Division I institution in Colorado, and that the release in the House settlement concerned NIL agreements and compensation, not the eligibility rule challenged here. The court granted the preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their Section 1 claim, were likely to suffer irreparable harm without relief, and that the balance of equities and the public interest favored them. The ruling permits the Class of 2022 to compete in a fifth season. Latest Event: The court certified the Class of 2022 and granted a preliminary injunction barring the NCAA from applying the Five-Year Eligibility Rule to the class. The case will proceed through the typical pre-trial motions and discovery process over the coming months.