A judge in Alabama has issued a significant ruling in favor of former Tennessee head coach Jeremy Pruitt, granting a preliminary injunction that blocks the NCAA from enforcing its six-year “show cause” penalty against him - at least for now.
The decision, handed down Monday by DeKalb County Judge Andrew Hairston, is a major development in Pruitt’s ongoing legal battle with the NCAA, which stems from a 2023 ruling that levied serious penalties against the former Vols head coach following an investigation into recruiting violations during his time in Knoxville.
At the heart of the ruling is the judge’s determination that the potential harm to Pruitt - namely, his inability to pursue coaching jobs due to the show cause restriction - outweighs any hardship the NCAA might face from the injunction. Simply put, this order prevents the NCAA from enforcing the penalty or interfering with Pruitt’s ability to be hired by NCAA-affiliated programs while the legal process continues.
Pruitt, who previously served as Alabama’s defensive coordinator under Nick Saban, filed for the injunction back in October as part of a $100 million lawsuit against the NCAA. That lawsuit, filed in DeKalb County, Alabama, argues that the show cause penalty has effectively blackballed him from the college coaching ranks.
His legal team made the case that the NCAA’s sanctions are actively blocking him from employment opportunities, a claim supported by his agent, Ed Marynowitz of CAA. In a sworn affidavit, Marynowitz stated that “multiple institutions and programs” had shown interest in hiring Pruitt, but that the show cause order made it “extremely problematic” for those schools to move forward. While the affidavit didn’t name specific programs, it pointed to a broader chilling effect across the college football landscape.
One exception to that trend has been Jacksonville State, which successfully petitioned the NCAA to hire Pruitt in a limited, analyst role that includes some remote work. However, that decision was specific to Jacksonville State and doesn’t extend to other schools, unless they go through a similar process to justify hiring him.
On the other side of the courtroom, NCAA attorneys pushed back against the injunction, arguing that Alabama courts don’t have the authority to intervene in NCAA infractions matters. They also contended that the organization had already shown some flexibility by approving Pruitt’s role at Jacksonville State, and that no other schools had formally contacted the Committee on Infractions about hiring him.
NCAA managing director Matt Mikrut submitted an affidavit echoing that point, noting that no additional schools had reached out about Pruitt’s employment status. But Hairston wasn’t swayed.
Last week, the judge denied the NCAA’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit altogether, writing that the court does, in fact, have jurisdiction over the case. His reasoning? The NCAA “inserted itself into Alabama” by limiting Pruitt’s ability to work for NCAA-member institutions within the state.
In Monday’s ruling, Hairston went a step further, openly questioning the fairness of the NCAA’s infractions process. He wrote that “a reasonable-minded juror could conclude that the COI’s infractions process was procedurally and substantively deficient,” citing concerns about transparency, due process, and fairness. That language signals the court believes Pruitt has at least a “reasonable likelihood of success at trial.”
This injunction doesn’t end the legal fight - far from it. But it’s a clear win for Pruitt as he tries to rebuild his coaching career. For now, the NCAA can’t enforce its show cause penalty, and Pruitt has a legal green light to pursue job opportunities without that cloud hanging directly over him.
Whether that leads to a return to the sidelines in a major role remains to be seen. But Monday’s ruling cracks open a door that, until now, had been firmly shut.