The Supreme Court of Mississippi on Thursday delivered a major legal defeat for the organization in a lawsuit brought by former Ole Miss associate athletic producer Barney Farrar, who had challenged the NCAA’s sanctions against then-coach Hugh Freeze’s sports program.
The Supreme Court’s decision in NCAA v. Farrar strengthens the NCAA’s long-standing legal status that it has the lawful right under the law to follow and enforce compliance regulations that govern the conduct of member institutions and their staff as a private membership organization where member schools and conferences deliberately visit.
Farrar worked for Ole Miss from 2012 until December 2016, when the university fired him in the midst of a recruiting incident under Freeze’s leadership. Before disagreement surfaced, Farrar was well-regarded at Ole Miss. He was praised as playing a “vital part in recruiting” and helping the Separatists “land four right top-15 filing groups, including the 2013 and 2016 busts that ranked leading five in the state”.

Earlier in 2016, the NCAA’s police team issued a notice of allegations against the Ole Miss basketball team and in 2017 issued a final see, with coaches and administrators—including Farrar—alleged to had violated conformity rules.
Farrar refuted some of the allegations, but he acknowledged others. According to the NCAA’s Committee on Infractions ( COI), which schools and their staff agree to follow but which critics have argued raised due process concerns, Farrar and his attorney had to appear before the committee.
The COI concluded Farrar engaged in multiple acts of wrongdoing, including arranging for boosters to make cash payments of between$ 13, 000 to$ 15, 600 to a football recruit, violating rules regarding the distribution of free merchandise, transportation, hotel lodging and meals to football recruits, and providing false and misleading information to investigators.
Farrar was punished by a five-year show-cause order that continued through November 2022 after the COI determined that he had committed Level I violations, which are the most serious violations of NCAA regulations. Any NCAA member institution that hired Farrar at the time was prohibited from letting him perform recruiting duties.
Farrar appealed the COI’s decision to the NCAA’s Infractions Appeals Committee ( IAC ), which upheld the COI’s decision. Farrar failed to adequately refute claims regarding cash payments, free lodging, or his “unethical conduct,” despite the IAC’s observation that he provided information that raised questions about the claim regarding free merchandise.

Farrar sued the NCAA in 2020, raising such claims as negligence, malicious interference with employment, denial of due process under the Mississippi Constitution and usurpation of judicial function. Due process and malicious interference are two of the remaining two claims that the trial court rejected, but the NCAA’s motion to grant summary judgment was denied by the trial court. The appeal led by attorneys J. Cal Mayo Jr., Paul Bowie Watkins, and Sarah Katherine Embry was heard by the Supreme Court of Mississippi.
Supreme Court Justice Kenny Griffis and the NCAA both expressed disagreements regarding the need for summary judgment, which is when there are no actual issues with substantive facts and that judgment should be entered as a matter of law.
In connection with its investigation into Ole Miss and its staff, Griffis emphasized that the NCAA did not engage in state action, meaning acting on behalf of the government or a related public entity ( such as Ole Miss or another state university ). Although the Mississippi Constitution does not specifically state that the state must act for the purposes of the United States Constitution, Griffis explained that the Supreme Court of Mississippi and other courts have interpreted the Mississippi Constitution as being “essentially identical” in practice.
Farrar’s claim that the NCAA played a role as a state actor in Ole Miss ‘ investigation was discredited by Griffis. He noted that the U. S. Supreme Court made clear in NCAA v. Jerry Tarkanian ( 1988 ) that the NCAA is not a state actor. Justice John Paul Stevens argued that the UNLV decision to take disciplinary actions as a means of adhering to NCAA regulations didn’t make the NCAA a state actor. The NCAA and UNLV also were not partners in the investigation but instead, Stevens noted, more akin to adversaries, which was a factor that cut against state actor recognition.
Drawing parallels with Tarkanian, Griffis wrote” the University of Mississippi’s decision to embrace the NCAA’s rules did not transform them into state rules and the NCAA into a state actor”. The justice added that Ole Miss and the NCAA were not at all partners in the investigation. The school refuted the claim that Farrar coordinated cash payments and arranged free merchandise for recruiters.

Griffis also emphasized the NCAA’s private restrictions as a non-state actor in his remarks. The NCAA “enjoyed no governmental powers to facilitate its investigation” of Farrar and “had no power to subpoena witnesses, to impose contempt sanctions, or to assert sovereign authority over any individual”. Also, the NCAA “did not” and” could not” directly discipline Farrar or any other state university employee. The NCAA’s only power was in regulating the membership obligations of member institutions, including how they employ Farrar.
Grififis added that the University of Mississippi was still able to acquiesce to its own standards and withdraw from the NCAA like any other member school.
Stated more bluntly, a school that agrees to follow NCAA rules must follow those rules, and if it doesn’t want to, it can leave the NCAA.
The malicious interference claim also proved to be unpopular with Griffis and the majority of his coworkers. He claimed that the NCAA has the right to limit how a member institution could employ Farrar ( who could, of course, work for a non-NCAA member without being subject to any NCAA restrictions ). As a private association that adopts and enforces rules to ensure compliance, Farrar is entitled to such a restriction. Griffis described as “notable” that Farrar doesn’t dispute he violated NCAA rules or that the COI followed NCAA procedures.
Chief Justice Michael K. Randolph argued in a dissented dubitante that the trial judge could reasonably assume that the judge was “facing with more questions than answers” at this point in the proceeding. Randolph listed relevant questions:” Does the NCAA regulate college athletics to ensure fair competition? Does the NCAA have a role in protecting the health and welfare of student athletes? Does the NCAA consistently impose academic integrity on each student? In this instance, did the NCAA follow its own rules? Are the United States and Mississippi Constitutions ‘” Due Process Clauses” identical?

Randolph added that although the U. S. Supreme Court’s decision in NCAA v. Alston ( 2021 ) concerned a different topic—NCAA rules limiting how member schools pay for education-related expenses—and invoked a different area of law ( antitrust law ), Alston is nonetheless relevant in that courts are questioning NCAA actions.
The NCAA’s victory in Farrar follows the NCAA’s earlier recent legal victories, which have been more successful in court since hiring the then-current Massachusetts governor. Charlie Baker as president.
In January, U. S. District Judge Robert Gettleman ruled in favor of the NCAA by denying motions brought by two former Overtime Elite ( OTE ) players—twin 20-year-old brothers Matt and Ryan Bewley—who asserted that although they received employment-benefits while playing in OTE, they should still be NCAA eligible since the NCAA now permits NIL. Gettleman reaffirmed that NCAA eligibility rules protect the “unique product” of college sports and that NIL does not take salary and other employment benefits into account.
Reese Brantmeier, a University of North Carolina tennis player, requested a preliminary injunction two months ago, but U.S. District Judge Catherine Eagles ruled in favor of the NCAA and granted her request.
Over the summer the NCAA negotiated a settlement to resolve the House, Carter and Hubbard college sports antitrust litigations and in October, U. S. District Judge Claudia Wilken preliminarily approved the deal.