By Jeff Birren, Senior Writer
Introduction
In 2021 Owen Heinecke went to Ohio State to both play lacrosse and attempt to walk on for the football team. That season he played in three lacrosse games. Heinecke left for the University of Oklahoma (“OU”) after the season. He sat out in 2022 but played football from 2023 through the 2025. Heinecke wanted to return for the 2026 season, but the NCAA concluded that he had participated in four seasons of collegiate sports in five years, completing his eligibility. OU was unable to obtain a waiver, so Heinecke sought and received a preliminary injunction to play in 2026. (Owen Heinecke v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, In the District Court In and For Cleveland County, Oklahoma, No. CV-2026-743 (April 17, 2026.))
Heinecke Background
Heinicke was born and raised in Tulsa Oklahoma and played high school football and lacrosse. He was recruited to play college football various schools but spurned those offers. Heinecke preferred to attend Ohio State to play lacrosse and to attempt to walk on to the football in 2021. He played a total of fifteen minutes spread over three lacrosse games that season. The NCAA counted that as a season of eligibility. Heinecke’s counsel later claimed that he was not allowed to try out for football due complications related to the Covid-shut down, and that he was still recovering from a high school injury.
Heinecke transferred to OU as a “preferred” football walk on in 2022. He did not play that year, his “redshirt season.” In 2023 and 2024 Heinecke primarily played special teams. He graduated in December 2024. His break-out season was 2025. He had 74 tackles and was Second-Team All-SEC.
OU sought a waiver from the NCAA to allow Heinecke to play during the 2026 football season, his sixth year in college. He is now twenty-four years old. OU’s requested waiver was rejected by the NCAA in January. The school appealed that decision, but the NCAA denied the appeal in February. Heinecke consequently hired an agent while preparing for life in the NFL.
Pre-Hearing Litigation Blitz
Heinecke also hired counsel to initiate litigation. On March 23, 2026, he filed a request for a restraining order and preliminary injunction to be allowed to play in 2026. It was accompanied by a “Request For Emergency Hearing and Brief in Support” and for an expedited NCAA response deadline. The case was filed in Oklahoma District Court. Heinecke was represented by seven lawyers spread over two law firms. The initial filing was accompanied by sixteen separate required payments, including one for $0.16. The Summons was returned “Served” on March 25, 2026.
The Court Clerk assigned the case to Judge Thad Balkman on March 23, 2026. That very day he granted both motions. He set the hearing date for April 16, 2026. (Order, March 23, 2026.) His Order kicked off a whirlwind of activity, including thirteen substantive docket entries between April 6, 2026, and April 15, 2026, the day prior to the hearing.
The NCAA filed its opposition to the motion on April 6. Heinecke concurrently filed his trial brief, and a motion to “Allow Press Coverage Via Court-Appointed Pool Photographer.” The following day Judge Balkman ordered an exchange of witness lists, set time limits on openings, and granted Heinecke’s request for press coverage. On April 8, Heinecke filed an unopposed motion to file a ten-page reply brief. His request was granted the following day, and the reply was filed the day after, April 10. Later that day, the NCAA filed its exhibit and witness lists.
Heinecke filed a notice of supplemental authority on April 13. In turn, the NCAA filed an amended exhibit and witness list, and a notice of supplemental filing on April 14. Judge Balkman granted permission to use a pool photographer who was “not to interfere” with the proceedings. “It is the Court’s hope that allowing a pool photographer in the courtroom will bolster public understanding and confidence in the judicial system.” (Order, April 15, 2026.)
Hearing
The four-hour hearing took place on April 16. 2026. Heinecke’s high school coach testified. OU was out in force. Head Football Coach Brent Venables, General Manager Jim Nagy, and Compliance Director Brady Newville testified for Heinecke (and OU). Heinecke testified approximately three hours after the hearing began. Despite filing two witness lists, the NCAA did not call a witness.
OU witness Newville described an NCAA waiver granted to Nalani Lyde, now Kaysia, in October 2025. Ms. Lyde/Kaysia was on Charlotte’s volleyball team for three years, then spent two years on George Mason’s basketball team, and was subsequently given a waiver to play a season of basketball at Providence. Newville had submitted the waiver ruling to the Court a week earlier. For reasons unknown, that waiver was not in the NCAA’s reference system. Newville did not know why it was missing but opined that it happened “because it was a one-off case that would have set a precedent.” He continued to speculate, adding otherwise it would be “admitting they can depart whenever they want” and “that’s not fair.” Newville, in his apparent role of witness and counsel, declared: “It’s conclusive. ” “Owen’s case and the Lyde decision are practically identical.” (https://247sports.com/article/owen-heinecke-preliminary-injunction-hearing-verdict-281953954/). (Note: The ability to receive online Oklahoma District Court filings took too long for the text of Supplemental Authority containing Lyde’s waiver to be available for this article.)
In closing argument, the NCAA tried to offer an explanation as to why the Lyde waiver was not in its reference system. However, statements by counsel are not evidence, and any proffered explanations about its whereabouts and circumstances should have come from a witness. Doubtlessly Judge Balkman noticed the absence of an NCAA witness.
Ruling
Judge Balkman took a break after closing argument. He resumed the hearing, and according to Heinecke’s legal team, stated from the bench that the NCAA “failed to consider the totality” of the circumstances. Heinecke was not “treated in good faith”. https://www.mcafeetaft.com/ou-linebacker-owen-heinecke-scores-big-win-against-ncaa/. Judge Balkman hand wrote his order. Here is the entire order:
Evidentiary hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction. After review of the written brief, testimony of witnesses, and oral presentations by counsel, The Court finds Plaintiff has met his burden by clear and convincing evidence that (1) he is likely to succeed upon the merits of his claims; (2) he will suffer irreparable harm unless the injunction is issued: (3) the irreparable harm suffered by him outweighs any harm to the NCAA; and (4) it is in the public interest. Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction is granted. Counsel for Plaintiff will prepare and submit a final journal entry.”
Counsel complied the following day, April 17, 2026, filing a five-line type-written version of the handwritten order. One consequence of the ever-so-abbreviated ruling is that the world will never know if the “totality of the circumstances” includes the fact that Heinecke’s high school coach spoke well of him. After the hearing, Heinecke seemed relieved that the process was over.
Up, But Over?
It appeared over on April 16, 2026, during the Courthouse hallway press conference. (Video from that press conference is available on the above link.) Eight days later, the NCAA returned to the fray. It filed multiple documents in Oklahoma’s Supreme Court. (Owen Heinecke v. National Athletic Association, In The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma, No. 124021 (4-24-2026)). The submissions included a Petition in Error that attached Judge Balkman’s hand-written order and a “Statement Of The Case.”
The Petition stated that OU had sought “a waiver of NCAA Bylaw 12.6—the ‘Five Year Rule’” on Heinecke’s behalf. It did so because Heinecke chose to play lacrosse at Ohio State but was not offered a football tryout. The NCAA denied OU’s both the requested waiver and its appeal. As a direct consequence, Heinecke sued the NCAA, “asserting breach of contract as a third-party beneficiary of the Bylaws and asking the court to reweigh the evidence.” His motion necessarily “altered the status quo.” Heinecke’s “evidence at the hearing primarily addressed character and athletic skills—neither disputed—not his entitlement to mandatory relief.” The “only evidence properly considered is OU’s original submissions.” The District Court “substituted its judgment for the NCAA’s.” (It is common for courts to do that in a legal disputes. If not, why have courts?)
Among the listed “Issues On Appeal” were: “Mr. Heinecke is not a third-party beneficiary of the Bylaws of the NCAA”; that he “did not establish by clear and convincing evidence” that the NCAA’s “application of its Bylaws was arbitrary or capricious”; nor that he “will suffer irreparable harm absent an injunction.” The “balance of equities and the public interest weigh in favor of denying the injunctive relief.”
It filed a “Designation Of Record For Appeal From District Court” and a motion for the Supreme Court “To Retain Appeal.” The injunction “would functionally give the student-athlete the full measure of relief sought in the lawsuit without giving the NCAA the chance to obtain appellate review of the ruling.” It “also precludes the NCAA from enforcing its eligibility rules equally across its members, causing harm to other student-athletes and NCAA member institutions.”
The NCAA requested the appeal be placed on the “Fast Track Docket”. Heinecke “did not dispute that he seeks to participate in college football during a sixth year of college enrollment.” The injunction “further enjoined the NCAA from reacting to the injunction in any way as to Plaintiff or the University, cementing the district court’s new status quo with this additional injunction sought by Plaintiff.” The preliminary injunction allows Heinecke “along with future plaintiffs” to be permitted “to obtain de facto final relief through preliminary injunctions. “This Court’s speedy intervention is necessary to prevent ‘judicial micromanagement’ of college athletics’, NCAA v Alston, 594 U.S. 69, 101 (2021).” The injunction (allegedly) opens the doors for any college athlete, of any age, to seek judicial intervention to play additional seasons in a sport.
The NCAA filed it papers on Friday. On Monday, State Chief Justice Dustin P. Rowe directed the Clerk of the Court to “Enter The Followings Orders of the Court.” The NCAA’s attached order “is not a memorialized appealable interlocutory order.” The NCAA was “directed to file an amended petition in error, no later than May 11, 2026, attaching a memorialized certified copy of the April 17, 2026, order.” (Emphases in the original).
Chief Justice Rowe summarily dealt with the “Motion to Place Appeal on ‘Fast Track’ Docket”, or “Alternatively, to Expedite Appeal.” “Appellant’s motion is denied.” He gave the NCAA until June 16, 2026, to file the “Notice of Completion of Record.” Should Appellant “wish to expedite the preparation of the record on appeal, which includes a designated transcript”, the NCAA “may request ‘the appropriate relief from the trial court for the timely preparation of the record.’” (Order, 4-27-2026, (Oklahoma Rules of Court citations omitted.))
Heinecke’s counsel did not let the sod grow under their feet. The very next day, they filed a motion to vacate its April 27, 2026, Order, because the NCAA’s appeal was premature. The motion argued that the time to appeal does not begin until Judge Balkman’s “journal entry” is filed with the Cleveland County Court Clerk. Dismissing the appeal “is not a harsh result.” The day after that, the Supreme Court ordered the NCAA to respond to Heinecke’s “Motion To Vacate and Dismiss Appeal as Premature on or before May 13, 2026.” The NCAA seems stuck until Judge Balkman completes the required record. On May 4, 2026, the NCAA filed a motion to admit to practice pro hac vice two lawyers from Holland & Knight’s Nashville, Tennessee office. The Supreme Court granted the motion. (Order, May 5, 2026). The case continues, but Heinicke will attempt to let the clock run out.
Editorial
The lack of an NCAA witness is interesting. The NCAA asserted facts from counsel table, but not the witness stand, unlike normal practice in evidentiary hearings. It was reduced to idle speculation as to why the Lyde waiver was or was not in its “system.” There was sufficient time to receive it from the client, determine if it was distinguishable, and present a live witness. How can counsel adequately represent a client that does not make such a critical document available?
In this and similar NCAA injunction cases, the grant or denial of the requested injunction is essentially outcome determinative. Maintaining “the status quo” is part of the test for the grant or denial of an injunction, but what exactly is the status quo as applied to a college athlete seeking to play over an NCAA objection? Neither egg can be unscrambled if the ruling is reversed. This case may set legal precedent, but only in Oklahoma. NCAA hyperbole notwithstanding, Heinecke may or may not be “persuasive” in other states, depending on the circumstances and judicial preferences. Heinecke is not the reason athletes began suing the NCAA for injunctive relief across the country in state and federal courts years ago.
Judge Balkman’s order is curious. Looking at it, one cannot tell if it was based on common law, civil law, or the Code of Hammurabi. Did he apply an Oklahoma statute, or one from a distant planet, far, far away? In view of the brevity of the ruling, without a single citation to the law of any jurisdiction, one may not be surprised by several things. He attended OU Law School, located in Norman, Oklahoma, just like OU’s football team. He granted eligibility to a skilled linebacker that OU desired to have in 2026. Judge Balkman’s position is up for election this year. It was his expressed “hope that allowing a pool photographer in the courtroom will bolster public understanding and confidence in the judicial system.” It did ensure that residents knew that he voted for OU. Six members of the Oklahoma State Supreme Court are also up for reelection. Heinecke had a significant home court advantage.
Then there is OU. NCAA rules are not given from above to member institutions. Members vote on the rules, including player-eligibility rules. But OU wanted its player. The hearing was important enough to OU that it sent its athletic director, essentially in the role of cheerleader. OU employees testified for Heinecke and were generous in bestowing their praise. That is typical in litigation, but it has nothing to do with the correct legal standard. It was gilding the lily to gain the linebacker.
University presidents decide how a school will vote on NCAA eligibility rules. To make OU’s perceived importance of the case crystal clear, OU President Joseph Harroz, Jr. also attended the hearing. Will Harroz, Jr. be there to support injunction requests of Texas players? His support for his player, over and against the NCAA is telling. Even as universities publicly agree on rules, schools and states work to defeat the NCAA in court and in state legislatures. It is a divided house. One result is inconsistency in court rulings and state statutes. Competent counsel take advantage of this inconsistency and Mr. Heinecke’s counsel remains a snap count ahead of the NCAA.
