Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-512_gfbh.pdf
Page Number: 4

4 

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSN. v. ALSTON 

Syllabus 

supervision of a highly detailed decree” could wind up impairing rather 
than enhancing competition.  Verizon Communications Inc. v. Law Of-
fices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, 540 U. S. 398, 415.  The district court’s 
injunction honored these principles, though.  The court enjoined only 
certain restraints—and only after finding both that relaxing these re-
strictions  would  not  blur  the  distinction  between  college  and  profes-
sional  sports  and  thus  impair  demand,  and  further  that  this  course 
represented a significantly (not marginally) less restrictive means of 
achieving  the  same  procompetitive  benefits  as  the  NCAA’s  current 
rules.  Finally, the court’s injunction preserves considerable leeway for 
the NCAA, while individual conferences remain free to impose what-
ever rules they choose.  To the extent the NCAA believes meaningful 
ambiguity exists about the scope of its authority, it may seek clarifica-
tion from the district court.  Pp. 30–36. 

958 F. 3d 1239, affirmed. 

  GORSUCH,  J.,  delivered  the  opinion  for  a  unanimous  Court.    KA-
VANAUGH, J., filed a concurring opinion.