The Southeastern Conference opposed Louisiana State University’s motion to dismiss its federal lawsuit before LSU’s Oct. 20 reply deadline. The SEC argues the case remains active beyond two football roster spots and a possible membership-termination vote.
CFB-HQ On SI reported that the SEC’s filing challenges LSU’s claim that the case is moot. The court has not ruled on LSU’s motion.
Key Takeaways
- The SEC argues its lawsuit concerns more than Dae’Quan Wright and Zxavian Harris not joining LSU’s football roster.
- LSU’s motion argues the case is moot because the two players did not join the team and the SEC presidents’ and chancellors’ meeting proceeded without interference.
- The SEC took no action on a membership-termination vote at its Sept. 10 meeting, and no new vote is scheduled in the filing.
Why the SEC Says Its Lawsuit Against LSU Is Still Active
LSU’s motion to dismiss centers on two developments, according to the SEC’s filing: Wright and Harris did not join the Tigers’ football roster, and SEC presidents and chancellors held their Sept. 10 meeting without interference.
The SEC argues those events do not resolve the broader dispute. In its filing, the league characterized the case as involving what it called LSU’s “ongoing defiance” of the conference’s Professionalism Rules rather than only the status of Wright and Harris.
The SEC also argues that LSU’s motion mischaracterizes the purpose of the lawsuit. “Defendants seek to dismiss a lawsuit the Southeastern Conference did not file,” the league wrote, adding that the Sept. 10 meeting was not “the outer boundary of the relief sought through this lawsuit.” Those statements are arguments in the filing, not findings by the court.
The SEC contends it still needs protection against possible interference with a membership-termination process. LSU’s motion takes the opposing position, arguing that the events cited by the school leave no live dispute for the court to decide.
The SEC’s filing therefore frames the lawsuit as a continuing dispute over conference rules and the league’s ability to pursue remedies, while LSU’s motion focuses on whether the specific events that prompted the case have already ended.
RJ Luis Adds a Basketball Dispute to the Case
The SEC’s filing also points to LSU’s handling of basketball player RJ Luis Jr. The league alleges that LSU recruited Luis, allowed him to practice with the men’s basketball team and has not definitively said he will be excluded from the roster.
The SEC presents Luis’ recruitment and practice participation as evidence that, in its view, LSU continues to disregard conference rules. Those are allegations in the litigation, not court-established conclusions.
Luis previously played for St. John’s. After going undrafted in 2025, he signed a two-way contract with the Utah Jazz and later spent time in the Boston Celtics organization.
An East Baton Rouge Parish judge granted Luis a preliminary injunction against the NCAA on Aug. 24. SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey has opposed Luis’ return to college basketball, adding another dispute over LSU’s roster status.
The Luis issue broadens the SEC’s presentation beyond the two football players. The league uses the basketball matter to support its argument that the lawsuit involves ongoing conduct and conference-rule enforcement rather than a dispute that ended when Wright and Harris did not join LSU.
Possible Membership Vote Remains Conditional
The SEC Constitution and Bylaws allow conference presidents and chancellors to terminate a member with a two-thirds vote. The league’s Sept. 10 meeting ended without action on such a vote.
The filing asks the court to prevent LSU officials and other defendants from blocking a termination vote if the conference chooses to hold one. That request concerns a possible future action; it does not establish that the SEC has decided to expel LSU.
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Aug. 24 | An East Baton Rouge Parish judge granted Luis a preliminary injunction against the NCAA. |
| Sept. 10 | The SEC presidents’ and chancellors’ meeting took place without a membership-termination vote. |
| Oct. 20 | LSU’s deadline to file a reply to the SEC’s opposition. |
The SEC’s filing does not schedule another membership-termination vote. The league’s position is that the possibility of such a vote remains relevant to the lawsuit even though no vote occurred at the Sept. 10 meeting.
U.S. District Judge Annemarie Carney Axon has not ruled on LSU’s motion to dismiss. LSU’s Oct.
20 reply deadline leaves the motion pending as the SEC presses its argument that the case should continue.
