The lawyers standard of Montana and South Dakota are considering filing a lawsuit against some of the House v. NCAA arrangement agreements.
According to a Montana attorney general’s spokesman,” The lawsuit is unjust to Montana universities.” We are examining possible constitutional steps.
The state’s two Division I institutions, Montana and Montana State, compete in the FCS-level Big Sky Conference, while South Dakota has two D-I FCS institutions that compete in the Summit Conference.
Attorney General of South Dakota Marty Jackley’s company said it is “looking at the available options regarding the NCCA petition and arrangement.”
As drafted, the settlement would require the non-power meeting institutions —such as those in Montana and South Dakota—to give up$ 990 million in NCAA distribution, over the next generation, in order to give NIL “back damages” that would generally go to previous power-conference football and basketball players.

A number of non-Power Five schools and conferences have expressed concerns that they are enduring an unfair burden due to a circumstance that was not their own, and to overcome antitrust lawsuits in which they were never named accused, since the House settlement’s top-line details were made public in May.
Houston Christian University made this point earlier this month when trying to join the complaint as a party. U.S. District Court Judge Claudia Wilken stingingly rebuked that work.
On Tuesday, Houston Christian’s outside lawyers James Sears Bryant told Sportico that the school intends this week to report a notice of appeal of Wilken’s rejection. HCU may raise these arguments in an elegance or a separate lawsuit against the NCAA, according to Sportico.
It remains to be seen whether any other party—including an solicitor general acting on behalf of a country’s universities—makes a similar effort to act, given Wilken’s broad order. As others have done successfully ( albeit in cases involving different legal questions ), a school or AG could also bring legal action against the NCAA.
The NCAA was sued by the attorneys general of Tennessee and Virginia in January for violating NIL laws. The general law enforcement officers of Florida, New York, and Washington, D.C. later added that work to a modified complaint that eventually resulted in the governing body for college sports to freeze its NIL police actions.
Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody sued the Atlantic Coast Conference in April for allegedly violating the state’s public files work by refusing to give Florida State University, which had sued the ACC over leave expenses, a version of its press freedom agreements.
AGs who wish to contest the settlement have a number of legal options, but any solution may experience challenging circumstances. They had the authority to ask for an order to act in the House agreement. If granted by Wilken, the AGs had fully get a message in the legal procedure.

The AGs may continue to assert that they are elected by insisting that they represent the respective state governments, which in turn, by virtue of their account, contract and fund the public institutions that are parties to the agreement. From that glass, states ‘ monies—i. electronic. tax monies—are at play in the arrangement. State government and university soldiers ‘ responsibilities to manage these funds and fulfill related moral duty are equally important. The AGs might want to see whether the settlement discussions should have included their input or whether they could have requested changes prior to its approval.
Wilken may be poised to claim these movements to act, just as she denied HCU’s movement.
First of all, the AGs and the states they represent may not have ranking because of this. While the AGs may demand they, and the public universities in their states, all fall within the same overcoat known as the government’s government, Wilken may find that a stretch. A state university’s athletic department falls under the purview of the state university—not the AG, governor or some other governmental official.
Given that the House litigation has been heard in court since 2020, Wilken might ask why the AGs did n’t act sooner. Wilken would be more likely to conclude that she lacks jurisdiction to address the issue in light of the AGs ‘ claims that the NCAA would be breaking its own rules. She is presiding over litigation involving whether NCAA regulations are in line with antitrust laws and whether the NCAA violates the rules. Further, Wilken might say that the settlement’s terms may change significantly over the course of that time because it will likely take several months before she will grant preliminary approval.
The AGs could sue the NCAA in state court and seek a restraining order and injunction to stop the settlement from being implemented, which is arguably a better option. A more sympathetic forum through a local jury and, depending on the state, an elected judge would be some advantages over federal court. At times, the NCAA struggled to transfer filings from state courts to federal court.
Additionally, it would n’t be difficult for the AGs to create a complaint that raises allegations of contract and fiduciary breaches. The AGs could easily assess the financial harm the settlement would cause for their respective states. The AGs could also argue that some of the damage would be irreparable ( meaning not repairable through monetary damages ) because, in their view, students ‘ chances of receiving financial aid would be thwarted, and that the state’s and schools ‘ reputations would be permanently damaged.