The Wisne v. NCAA athletes who received an injunction to play another college season are now accusing the NCAA of wrongly preventing them from joining teams.

In an emergency motion filed Tuesday, attorneys representing athletes from the high school class of 2022 who finished college this past spring want a court order directing the NCAA to let them join schools even with the transfer portal closed.

Last Friday, U.S. District Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney certified a nationwide class of D-I college athletes who began college play in 2022–2023, completed four years of eligibility by this past spring and are barred from a fifth season. She also granted an injunction that blocks the NCAA from enforcing its eligibility rules as to that category of athletes.

The NCAA has asked Judge Sweeney to stay her ruling pending its appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, though Sweeney isn’t expected to rule on the NCAA’s motion until at least next week. The 10th Circuit, which just received the appeal on Monday, is also unlikely to take any action in the immediate future. In other words, the injunction will remain in effect until at least next week.

Timing matters, given that incoming freshmen athletes typically relocate to campus for workouts before their non-athlete classmates arrive in mid-August. It’s also unclear how many roster spots are even available at schools, and whether coaches would, with the fall semester about to start, drop a freshman or transfer athlete from the team for a more seasoned athlete who is in the Wisne injunctive class.

In a brief authored by attorney Robert K. Shelquist of Cuneo Gilbert Flannery & Laduca, the athletes claim the NCAA has obstructed implementation of the injunction by allegedly limiting where the athletes can play “to one buyer of their labor: the school they attended during the 2025-26 season.” And if that school no longer has a spot, “no buyer exists.”

Shelquist asserts the NCAA informed schools over the weekend that the injunction only pertained to a narrow group of athletes who fit the class description, and the ruling has no bearing on other NCAA bylaws.

As Shelquist tells it, the information is better understood as a “tactic,” in that the NCAA controls the transfer portal database and could “block any athlete who found an open roster spot at another school” from having a compliance officer enter the athlete’s name. 

The transfer portal itself was not at issue in the injunction, but Shelquist maintains using the portal, where the last transfer window for D-I college football occurred in January, to prevent enrollment of athletes protected by the injunction effectively interferes with the injunction.

Whether the transfer portal, or any transfer restrictions, ought to govern players who have already finished college is a subject Judge Sweeney will likely weigh. The first named plaintiff, Brock Wisne, signed with a Spanish pro basketball team after graduating from Northern Colorado. Another plaintiff, Aidan Shaw, played at Boston College in 2025-26 before entering the 2026 NBA draft.

Shelquist also claims that colleges “still fear illegal NCAA retribution” through what he coins the “medievally named” rule of restitution. The rule allows the NCAA to retroactively impose punishments against a school in the form of vacating records, stripping championships, requiring return of TV receipts and declaring a school ineligible for postseason play if a player competes based on an injunction that is later vacated.

Shelquist wants an order stating the rule of restitution would not apply, even if the 10th Circuit sides with the NCAA. The logic is that if colleges are afraid to sign a player out of fear of retaliation, the player won’t receive the benefits of Judge Sweeney’s order granting the injunction.

Attorneys for the NCAA will have the chance to challenge the athletes’ arguments. According to the case docket, Judge Sweeney has given the NCAA until Thursday to respond.

Expect the NCAA to argue that it has correctly informed member schools that the injunction only governs the application of eligibility rules concerning players from the high school class of 2022. The injunction doesn’t block those rules or any other rules. Instead, it restrains the NCAA from interpreting eligibility rules in a way to prevent players who fit the criteria of the injunction from playing in 2026-27.

In a statement released Tuesday night, NCAA chief legal officer Scott Bearby described Tuesday’s motion as an attempt by the plaintiffs to “relitigate” issues. He said Sweeney made clear that she is “not enjoining any aspects of the House Settlement or Division I transfer rules.” Those transfer rules include the NCAA’s ability to punish schools for so-called ghost transfers, where the athlete didn’t enter the transfer portal during an authorized window. Bearby added that if Sweeney denies the NCAA’s motion for a stay of the injunction, the NCAA will “immediately” petition the Tenth Circuit to enter a stay pending appeal.

(Update: This story was updated with Bearby’s statement.)