Brody Robinson vs. NCAA: The Fifth-Year Eligibility Fight

The Brody Robinson NCAA lawsuit, filed in Oakland County Circuit Court in late March 2026, sought a fifth season of college basketball eligibility on the theory that his one junior college year should not count toward the NCAA’s four-season limit. Judge David M. Cohen granted an emergency temporary restraining order on March 27, 2026, but denied Robinson’s request for a preliminary injunction in a virtual hearing the following month, leaving him without the legal protection he needed to enter the spring transfer portal as an eligible player for 2026-27.¹

What Robinson Was Asking For

Robinson played four college seasons across three levels: Chattanooga in 2022-23, Garden City Community College in 2023-24, UT-Arlington in 2024-25, and Oakland University in 2025-26, where he led the Golden Grizzlies with 17.6 points and 6.7 assists per game.² Under NCAA rules, athletes get four seasons of competition within a five-year window, and JUCO seasons count toward that total. Robinson wanted a fifth year by having his JUCO season excluded from the count.

His argument leaned on Diego Pavia, the Vanderbilt quarterback who sued the NCAA in federal court in Tennessee and won a preliminary injunction in December 2024 on the theory that counting JUCO seasons against Division I eligibility was an unlawful restraint of trade under federal antitrust law.³ Five days after that ruling, the NCAA Division I Board of Directors approved a one-year blanket waiver granting former non-NCAA athletes an additional year of eligibility for 2025-26 only.⁴ The waiver did not extend to 2026-27, which is the gap Robinson’s suit tried to close. His attorneys argued that granting relief to one cohort of former JUCO athletes while denying it to the next was fundamentally unfair.⁵

Robinson said an additional season could earn him $500,000 or more in Name, Image, and Likeness compensation, most likely through a transfer.² He had asked Oakland to submit a waiver request on his behalf, but athletic director Steve Waterfield declined, saying the school could not file one “in good faith” under current NCAA guidelines.¹ Litigation was what remained.

How the Case Moved in Court

Robinson was represented by attorney David Russell of the Lansing firm Foster, Smith, Collins & Smith. The complaint invoked the Michigan Antitrust Reform Act and argued the NCAA applied its eligibility rules inconsistently.⁶

The March 27 TRO paused the NCAA from terminating Robinson’s eligibility while the case proceeded. Judge Cohen set a virtual hearing on the preliminary injunction for April 6, one day before the NCAA’s spring transfer portal window opened on April 7.⁵ Robinson was aiming to enter that portal and use a fifth year to land an NIL deal at a new program.

Cohen denied the injunction. Without it, Robinson had no legal cover to be treated as eligible for 2026-27. The spring portal ran from April 7 through April 21, and no reported transfer or NIL agreement followed.⁷

Why the Argument Struggled

By the time Robinson filed, federal appellate courts had turned against the antitrust theories that produced early wins like Pavia’s. In October 2025, the Sixth Circuit dismissed the NCAA’s Pavia appeal on mootness grounds after the NCAA had already granted Pavia his waiver, so no binding appellate precedent came out of that case. The Third Circuit vacated a similar injunction in Elad v. NCAA, faulting the lower court for failing to define the relevant antitrust market and for accepting thin economic data.⁸ In April 2026 the Fourth Circuit vacated another injunction, in the case of West Virginia’s Jimmori Robinson (no relation), demanding “cold, hard data” on market definitions.⁹

Filing in state court was a deliberate choice. As of mid-2026, six of the ten preliminary injunctions granted in eligibility cases since fall 2024 came out of state courts, where procedural timelines tend to be faster and judges may focus more on individual harm. State court is not a safe harbor, though. Tennessee athlete Joey Aguilar was denied an injunction after withdrawing from federal court and refiling under state antitrust law, with the court citing a low likelihood of success and dormant Commerce Clause concerns about a single state’s law reaching a national eligibility system.¹⁰ Robinson’s use of the Michigan Antitrust Reform Act ran into the same kind of headwinds.

The broader numbers were not encouraging either. Since fall 2024, at least 47 eligibility cases reached a ruling in federal court alone, and the NCAA won 26 of them.¹⁰

Where Things Stand

As of mid-2026 there is no public sign that Robinson’s underlying lawsuit has been resolved through settlement or a merits ruling. The preliminary injunction denial and the closed spring transfer window together leave his path to a fifth season blocked. NCAA President Charlie Baker has asked Congress to pass federal legislation that would preempt the growing patchwork of state-court rulings on eligibility.¹⁰ Until something changes at that level or on appeal, athletes in Robinson’s position are working with the same rules and the same courts that have already turned him away.

1
Detroit News. Oakland U Basketball Star’s Bid for Extra Season Dealt Major Blow in Court
2
Yahoo Sports. Oakland Star Basketball Player Suing NCAA for Extra Year of Eligibility
3
ESPN. NCAA to Grant Waiver for Ex-JUCO Players While Appealing Pavia Ruling
4
NCAA. Division I Board of Directors Waiver Eligibility Q&A
5
On3. Oakland Star Brody Robinson Suing NCAA for Extra Year of Eligibility
6
Detroit News. Oakland University Basketball Player Sues NCAA Over Eligibility
7
AOL News. Oakland U Basketball Star’s Bid for Extra Season Dealt Major Blow in Court
8
Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney. Clarifying Antitrust Requirements for NIL-Era Eligibility Challenges
9
Sportico. Robinson NCAA Fourth Circuit Ruling
10
Front Office Sports. Why State Courts May Be the Key to Winning More NCAA Eligibility