Long post on Ohio State board re: TRO gambit:
….
Not a trial lawyer, and someone succinctly stated it in another thread what the elements of a TRO are, but I have practiced corporate law and have had attempts to issue TROs. Basically in laymen terms, the affected party has to show irreparable harm would be done, and the TRO would mitigate the harm or potentially stop the harm from occurring. But not only that, among other things, they have to also show that the merits of a case they are pursuing against the other party is likely to succeed (subjective language makes this a crap shoot basically). So, first have to figure out who would have standing to request the TRO, Harbs or UM. Let’s just useUM and say UM thinks that a suspension is an action that is taken against them, so they would have standing to submit for a TRO, they would have to show that the suspension would cause irreparable harm to them as a university. They also have to show that they would likely to succeed on reversing the action in court. I find it very hard that UM could argue they would be irreparably harmed by such action, as it doesn’t affect the ability to play, and since they played 3 games already this year without him, they can’t argue that they can’t win without him. I do think the self imposed suspension really hurts their argument. They also have to prove in a lawsuit, they would be likely to succeed. The lawsuit would have to be breach of contract, between BigTen and UM. UM would have to argue that the bylaws/procedure weren’t followed or the suspension lacked cause.
For the first element, I think it’s hard for UM to argue irreparable harm. What exactly would be harmed? UM won without him at the beginning of the year. Harbs can’t exactly claim irreparable harm either, cause he would be getting paid. What is he exactly losing?
For the second, I don’t see how they can claim that there isn’t cause to suspend, as there is a true question on Harbs involvement and velar lack of institutional control (all the issues put together, not just the Stallions/cheating issue). By giving UM opportunity to respond to the punishment, it essentially negates the lack of following procedure. So that would be hard for them to argue.
Then there are issues of balance of equities, and then having to produce evidence that would go against the narrative.
And Judges don’t usually issue TROs, unless immediate and dangerous situation (in my limited experience). They would rather it get heard properly and hear both sides.
So, personally, I think BigTen is just playing chess with UM. They want to threaten legal, BigTem will cover its bases to meet the letter of the contract. Weakens an already weak TRO threat.