Ohio Athletes Score NIL Rights After Court Issued Injunction

Ohio Athletes Score NIL Rights After Court Issued Injunction

by | Nov 11, 2025 | General

Ohio remains one of only six states nationwide that continue to prohibit high school student-athletes from entering into name, image, and likeness (NIL) agreements. Jamier Brown, one of the top high school football prospects in the nation, challenged the prohibition under antitrust principles. His family has argued that the state’s NIL restrictions have caused him to lose out on over $100,000 in potential endorsement deals. A Franklin County Court of Common Pleas judge issued a temporary restraining order against the Ohio High School Athletic Association (OHSAA) on October 20, 2025, temporarily blocking the state’s prohibition.

The litigation has forced the OHSAA to call an emergency bylaw referendum to vote on a new NIL policy for the state. Although member schools declined to pass a similar NIL proposal as recently as 2022, the OHSAA has warned that failing to do so now could leave the future of NIL regulations in the hands of Ohio courts. The full text of the proposal is available here.

The proposed bylaw would allow student-athletes to be compensated for their name, image, and likeness under certain circumstances. For example, agreements associated with inappropriate or distracting products/services (such as alcohol, cannabis, or firearms) are strictly prohibited, and the specifics of each agreement must be disclosed to the OHSAA within fourteen days. Students would also be prohibited from engaging in NIL activities during school hours or during any official team activities under the proposal, and they would be barred from using the name, logo, mascot, or other proprietary properties a member school or the OHSAA in any NIL activity.

Several restrictions were included in the proposal to ensure NIL deals are not leveraged by Ohio schools or booster groups for improper recruiting purposes. Students cannot enter into an NIL agreement that is provided as an inducement to attend a particular school, and they cannot accept any deal provided by a member school, its booster club, or an administrator or coach. NIL collectives, which are third-party groups typically formed by alumni and supporters to pool together fundraising for NIL opportunities, are also strictly prohibited by the OHSAA’s proposal.

Failing to follow these guidelines can have serious consequences for student athletes. If a student fails to disclose their NIL agreement within the 14-day deadline, they can be declared ineligible for up to twenty percent of the sports season. The proposal also creates a rebuttable presumption that a student was improperly recruited if their transfer can reasonably be linked to a recent NIL agreement, and the OHSAA reserves the right to suspend a student from participating in athletics during the pendency of the alleged violation.  

What this means for your district? The voting window for the proposed bylaw will open on November 17 and continue through November 21. Each OHSAA member high school has one vote, which can be cast by the school principal. Even if the OHSAA’s proposal isn’t passed it is worth noting that NIL is increasingly becoming the norm across the country, even at the high school level. In the meantime, districts cannot prohibit students from engaging in NIL activity while the temporary restraining order remains active, and districts may benefit from having a plan in place to protect their own image/brand as students begin to seek endorsement deals.  

 

 

Ohio Athletes Score NIL Rights After Court Issued Injunction

Innuendos Aren’t Innocent: Sixth Circuit Upholds Dress Ban on Vulgar Messages

by | Nov 11, 2025 | Board Policy & Representation, General

D.A. v. Tri County Area Schools, 1:23-cv-00423 (6th Cir. October 14, 2025).

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled against two middle school students who challenged their district’s dress code, upholding the school’s authority to regulate clothing that contains vulgar innuendo—even when the message also has a political dimension.

The students, D.A. and X.A., received “Let’s Go Brandon” sweatshirts as Christmas gifts from their mother. When D.A. wore his sweatshirt to school, the assistant principal directed him to remove it because the phrase’s meaning was considered profane. Despite the warning, both students wore the sweatshirts again and were once more instructed to remove them due to the slogan’s “profane double meaning.”

The district’s dress code prohibited “attire with messages or illustrations that are lewd, indecent, vulgar, or profane.” School officials testified that the policy did not restrict political expression so long as the message complied with the dress code. In fact, both students acknowledged that classmates had worn “Make America Great Again” apparel, and the principal testified that students regularly wore clothing supporting candidates from both political parties without incident.

The plaintiffs argued that “Let’s Go Brandon” is not inherently profane but is instead a euphemism—a non-profane substitute for an offensive phrase. The Sixth Circuit rejected that argument, emphasizing that a euphemism carries the same communicative content as the phrase it replaces, even if the offensive word is obscured. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Bethel School District v. Fraser, the court reiterated that schools may regulate speech conveying an obscene or vulgar message even when the specific words are not themselves obscene or vulgar. 478 U.S. 675, 682 (1986). The court also relied on Boroff v. Van Wert City Board of Education, which affirms that districts have broad discretion to identify student expression as vulgar so long as their determination is reasonable. 220 F.3d 465 (6th Cir. 2000).

Here, the court found that the origin and commonly understood meaning of “Let’s Go Brandon”—a euphemism for “F*** Joe Biden”—was plainly vulgar. Accordingly, the administrators’ decision to classify the phrase as vulgar and to prohibit the sweatshirts was deemed reasonable.

The political nature of the message did not alter the analysis. The court explained that “in the schoolhouse, vulgarity trumps politics,” and that the First Amendment does not allow students to circumvent school rules by embedding vulgarity within political expression. While adults may use such language in public discourse, schools are not required to permit the same level of expression among children. Fraser, 478 U.S. at 682. As a result, the district could categorically prohibit the slogan as a vulgar expression despite its political context.

What Does This Mean for Your District? This decision reaffirms that Ohio school districts have broad discretion to restrict student expression that they reasonably deem to be vulgar or profane, even when the message also carries political content. While students retain First Amendment rights at school, those rights are not unlimited, and districts are not required to tolerate “lewd, indecent, or offensive speech and conduct” simply because students wish to express it.