By Landis Barber
A South Carolina state court judge in Pickens County has ordered the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) to restore Tristan Smith’s eligibility for the 2026-2027 football season, granting the Clemson wide receiver a temporary injunction even after he lost his motion for a temporary restraining order. Written by Judge Jessica A. Salvini in the Thirteenth Judicial District, the order blocks the NCAA from enforcing its November 14, 2025, denial of Smith’s Five-Year Rule waiver and directs the NCAA to declare him immediately eligible to compete at Clemson this fall.
From 2022 through the spring of 2024, Smith played junior college football at Hutchinson Community College. The NCAA counted those seasons against Smith under its Five-Year Rule, which requires athletes to complete their eligibility within five years of initial enrollment. After the NCAA denied his waiver request, Smith sued, alleging tortious interference with prospective business relations and breach of contract as an implied third-party beneficiary. Specifically, Smith argued that the denial was an arbitrary and capricious departure from how the NCAA has treated other athletes in nearly identical circumstances.
Smith compared his case to the case of Malik Benson, another Hutchinson Community College product who had two junior college years counted against his eligibility clock. Rather than denying Benson’s waiver, the NCAA granted it, clearing him to play for the University of Oregon. As discussed in the opinion, the two cases are “nearly identical.” Thus, the court struggled to identify any meaningful distinction between them beyond the calendar year in which each player’s final Division I season falls. According to Judge Salvini, the difference in calendar year alone is not enough to justify treating Smith differently than Benson.
Turning to the irreparable harm, the court leaned on State of Ohio v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, No. 1:23-cv-00100 (N.D.W. Va. Dec. 7, 2023), a case it described as the leading authority on the immediacy of harm tied to lost athletic participation. In citing the case, Judge Salvini reaffirmed that losing even a single season can constitute irreparable harm, particularly when name, image and likeness (NIL) earnings are tied to playing time. In addition, the court referenced Sorsby v. NCAA, DC-2026-CV-0791, a case decided on June 8, 2026, which recognized that the harm from lost eligibility extends beyond the field itself to coaching relationships and training resources. Notably, Judge Salvini was careful to cite Sorsby only for the narrow point regarding irreparable harm rather than endorsing the full decision.
As to Smith’s likelihood of success on the merits, the court was candid about its reservations. Noting that Smith’s implied third-party beneficiary claim is far from a guaranteed winner, but South Carolina’s standard for a temporary injunction does not require a plaintiff to prove its case outright. Under South Carolina law, a plaintiff need only raise a fair question as to the existence of a right, and Judge Salvini found that Smith had met his burden.
Due to the ruling, the NCAA is barred from enforcing the November denial, from penalizing Smith or Clemson for allowing him to compete, and from invoking its Rule of Restitution under Bylaw 12.9.4.2 to claw back any benefit Smith receives while the injunction stands.
Now, Tristan Smith will be eligible to suit up for Clemson even after the court denied a temporary restraining order. While the rules have changed, the court’s reasoning is significant for pending cases. When the NCAA’s waiver decisions leave little distinction between two similarly situated athletes, the determination can appear as an arbitrary and capricious ruling. Thus, while Judge Salvini’s order does not resolve whether the NCAA acted arbitrarily as a matter of law, the court is willing to let that question proceed to a full hearing on the merits. Whether Smith ultimately prevails at trial is a separate question.
Landis Barber is an attorney at Safran Law Offices in Raleigh, North Carolina, where he focuses on civil litigation, construction law, and sports and entertainment matters. He advises clients ranging from universities to private companies on contracts, transactions, and risk management. A member of the Sports Lawyers Association and Chair of the North Carolina Bar Association’s Sports and Entertainment Section, Landis is licensed to practice in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee.
