Rylan Griffen Wins Eligibility Injunction, Plans Texas A&M Return
Source: KBTX News 3 Sports. Casualplayhub News adds summary, context, and editorial framing while linking back to the original report.
Billable hours have become a familiar rhythm for lawyers tied to the Texas A&M men's basketball program this week. On Thursday, former Aggies guard Rylan Griffen was granted a temporary restraining order against the NCAA, the Southeastern Conference, and SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey in the Dallas County District Court. The legal action, detailed in court documents obtained by KBTX, places Griffen among 42 athletes contesting the NCAA's new age-based eligibility model. That model, which grants athletes five years to complete five seasons, did not grandfather in members of the 2022 recruiting class—a group that includes Griffen, who just finished his fourth season of eligibility.
According to the plaintiff's petition, should Griffen be granted an additional year, he "intends to remain at Texas A&M University for the 2026-27 season." A source close to the program confirmed that the Aggie men's basketball team is "exploring all options" regarding Griffen's status. He is currently enrolled in classes at A&M this semester, working toward his degree.
This ruling follows a similar victory for another A&M guard, Bryson Warren, who was granted a TRO against the NCAA and SEC on Wednesday. Warren, acting under the terms of his restraining order, entered the transfer portal on Thursday. Griffen's order, however, is notably broader. It explicitly prohibits the NCAA, SEC, and Sankey from barring any of the 42 plaintiffs from playing during the 2026-27 season or from issuing sanctions against the athletes or the programs they represent. The order also opens a one-week transfer window starting Thursday, allows athletes who used a year or two of eligibility at the junior college level to reclaim those years, and permits players who signed professional contracts to return to college, provided they terminate those agreements and repay any money received. Importantly, the NCAA cannot retroactively punish athletes or their universities if the TRO is later overturned.
A hearing in the case is scheduled for September 11 at the George Allen Dallas County Courts Building. This is the second order that has restrained both the NCAA and the SEC from enforcing eligibility rules. While Warren's petition did not specifically seek relief from the conference, Judge John Brick included the SEC—or any member conferences—in the order. Griffen's petition and order mark the first time the SEC and Commissioner Greg Sankey have been named as defendants in an eligibility lawsuit.
Earlier this week, the SEC enacted a new policy regarding the eligibility of players with professional experience. Among its provisions, the policy prevents schools from rostering athletes who have signed G League contracts or have been listed on G League rosters. According to a report from On3.com, penalties for violating the policy include a suspension of the head coach for half a season and a fine equal to 50% of the program's annual budget. Commissioner Greg Sankey holds sole authority to impose penalties. University presidents and chancellors voted unanimously to approve the policy change, with every school except LSU—which abstained—voting in favor of the penalties.
Boise State sports law professor Sam Ehrlich, analyzing the Warren TRO, told KBTX that the SEC might intervene to defend its new policy. "I imagine the SEC is probably going to try to intervene here and try to say, 'We weren't served here. We were not part of this lawsuit,'" Ehrlich said. "We're not named as the defendant in this lawsuit, so you can't bind us in this regard,' and that's going to create something of a fight. Are they actually aligned with the NCAA to that degree, where you can kind of bind them within the same thing, even if you're not declaring them as a defendant? And maybe they get out as a defendant later. So, I think we'll definitely see that in the injunction hearing and around the injunction as well and we'll probably definitely see it on appeal as well, if the injunction is granted."
In his one season with the Aggies, Griffen averaged 11.2 points, 2.7 rebounds, and 2.5 assists, helping lead Texas A&M to the second round of the NCAA Tournament under head coach Bucky McMillan's first season in Aggieland.
Article commentary
The legal battles unfolding around Texas A&M's basketball program underscore a fundamental shift in the relationship between college athletes and the governing bodies that have long controlled their careers. Rylan Griffen's temporary restraining order, along with Bryson Warren's earlier victory, represents more than just a procedural win—it signals a growing willingness among athletes to challenge the NCAA's eligibility rules through the courts, and now, the SEC itself is being drawn into the fray. What makes these cases particularly significant is the direct confrontation with the SEC and its commissioner, Greg Sankey. Historically, the NCAA has been the primary target of athlete lawsuits, with conferences often remaining on the sidelines or acting as allies. By naming the SEC as a defendant, Griffen's legal team is forcing a reckoning over the conference's new policy that restricts eligibility for players with professional experience. That policy, which includes draconian penalties like a half-season coach suspension and a 50% budget fine, was clearly designed to deter athletes from testing professional waters before returning to college. But the TROs effectively nullify that policy for the plaintiffs, at least temporarily. The legal question at the heart of these cases is whether the NCAA's age-based eligibility model—which fails to grandfather in the 2022 recruiting class—violates antitrust law or basic principles of fairness. The plaintiffs argue that the rule arbitrarily strips them of a year of eligibility they were promised when they enrolled. The NCAA counters that it has the authority to set eligibility standards, but courts have increasingly sided with athletes in recent years, particularly in the wake of the Supreme Court's Alston decision and the rise of NIL rights. From a strategic perspective, the SEC's decision to adopt its own policy—and to vote overwhelmingly in favor of harsh penalties—suggests the conference is preparing for a long legal fight. Commissioner Sankey has positioned himself as a defender of the traditional college sports model, but these injunctions may force the SEC to either negotiate or face further judicial setbacks. The abstention of LSU, notably the only school not to vote for the penalties, hints at internal divisions among member institutions. For Texas A&M, these legal victories offer a potential boost to the basketball program. Griffen, a key contributor last season, could return alongside a roster that is still being shaped. The one-week transfer window granted by the order also gives other plaintiffs flexibility. However, the uncertainty remains: the September 11 hearing will determine whether the TRO becomes a preliminary injunction or dissolves. If the court sides with the athletes, it could set a precedent that forces the NCAA and conferences to rethink their eligibility frameworks entirely. Professor Sam Ehrlich's analysis points to a likely legal battle over whether the SEC can be bound by an order where it was not initially named as a defendant. That technicality could become a central issue on appeal. But the broader implication is clear: the era of unquestioned NCAA and conference authority over athlete eligibility is over. Athletes are now leveraging the courts to redefine the rules of the game, and Texas A&M has become the latest battleground in this transformative struggle.