From Lubbock to Dallas: The Big 12’s Federal Lawsuit Against Texas Tech and What It Reveals About the Future of College Sports Governance

By Ryan J. Regula

One week ago, a Lubbock County district court issued a temporary injunction in Sorsby v. NCAA that neutralized the NCAA’s most powerful enforcement tool by enjoining the Rule of Restitution on a sweeping, third-party-inclusive basis. Today, the Big 12 Conference filed a 47-page federal complaint in the Northern District of Texas against Texas Tech University, several university officials, and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton — asking the court to declare that the Big 12 can sanction Texas Tech under its own bylaws and to enjoin the State of Texas from retaliating for doing so. What began as an individual eligibility dispute has become a multi-jurisdictional governance crisis. This filing marks the moment the question shifted from “Can the NCAA enforce its rules?” to “Can anyone enforce rules in college sports — and if so, who?”

An Overlapping-Authority Problem

What we now have is a classic jurisdictional conflict. The NCAA, the Big 12, two state attorneys general, a state court, and a federal court all claim authority over the same conduct — each operating under a different legal instrument, each with a different jurisdictional reach, and their directives now in direct conflict. Texas AG Paxton says the conference cannot sanction. Oklahoma AG Drummond says it must. The state court says the NCAA cannot enforce. The Big 12 says it can enforce independently. And a federal court must sort out the hierarchy.

This structural pattern is familiar to anyone who practices administrative law. It arises whenever a federal body, a state body, and a regulated party all assert overlapping jurisdiction. The resolution turns on recurring questions: Which body’s authority derives from which legal source? Are the instruments independent or derivative? Does one sovereign’s assertion of authority impermissibly burden another’s? Is there a constitutional principle that resolves the conflict? The answer to those questions will not merely resolve a dispute about one quarterback. It will establish the governance framework for college sports going forward.

The Gap the Big 12 Is Filling

As discussed in the prior alert, the Sorsby injunction enjoined the NCAA’s Rule of Restitution against Texas Tech, every opponent on its 2026 schedule, and all affiliates — eliminating the NCAA’s primary deterrent. But the injunction binds the NCAA. It does not bind the Big 12 Conference.

The Big 12’s theory is straightforward: it is a separate legal entity with separate bylaws and a separate membership contract. When it proposes to sanction Texas Tech, it is enforcing its own competitive-integrity standards — not NCAA rules. The conference is not challenging Judge Curry’s order. It is arguing that the order constrains the NCAA, not the conference. If the federal court agrees, it establishes that conferences can fill the enforcement vacuum the Sorsby injunction created.

The Attorney General Problem

What makes this filing extraordinary is the constitutional dimension. Paxton warned on June 11, 2026, that sanctioning Texas Tech could constitute an antitrust violation. Drummond responded the next day, calling Paxton’s arguments “meritless” and urging the Big 12 to act. The Big 12 now faces contradictory demands from two state sovereigns.

The conference frames this as a dormant Commerce Clause problem: when two states impose conflicting obligations on a private interstate association, no uniform governance is possible. If a state AG can weaponize antitrust threats to prevent a multi-state conference from enforcing its own bylaws against a home-state university, then enforcement outcomes are determined by political willingness to shield institutions — not by the merits of the underlying conduct. The federal court is being asked to declare that this kind of parochial state action cannot override the governance prerogatives of an interstate private body.

The “Active Concert” Question

Sorsby’s counsel has argued that Big 12 sanctions would violate the Lubbock County injunction because they constitute action “in active concert or participation” with the NCAA under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(2). The Big 12’s response: it is not acting at the NCAA’s direction. It is exercising independent governance authority under its own bylaws. Two organizations independently concluding that the same conduct violates their respective rules does not establish “concert” any more than parallel federal and state prosecutions establish that one sovereign is the agent of the other. This will be the pivotal legal issue in the federal proceeding.

What This Means for Stakeholders

For universities, a favorable state-court injunction against the NCAA does not guarantee freedom from all competitive consequences. Conference membership is a separate contractual relationship with separate obligations and independent sanctioning authority.

For student-athletes, the Sorsby playbook was designed to neutralize the NCAA — not conference-level sanctions under separate bylaws. Future litigants will need to name their conference as a party to any injunction.

For conferences, the Big 12 provides a procedural template: seek federal declaratory relief before imposing sanctions. But exercising that authority requires political will and tolerance for the retaliation that may follow.

For state attorneys general, the filing raises a question that will recur: does a state’s interest in protecting a home-state university extend to threatening private interstate associations? The dormant Commerce Clause suggests it does not.

Looking Ahead

College sports governance is no longer a single-regulator system. It is a multi-layered, multi-jurisdictional framework in which the NCAA, conferences, state courts, federal courts, and state executives all claim authority. The interaction of those authorities is being tested through litigation in real time. That is no longer a sports law problem. It is an administrative law problem — one that demands the same jurisdictional rigor, structural analysis, and constitutional awareness that practitioners bring to any dispute involving overlapping regulatory bodies, conflicting sovereign interests, and a federal court asked to impose order on the hierarchy.

***Opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily the firm’s or their colleagues’.