Sorsby lawyer warns Big 12 against undermining 2026 eligibility order

The Big 12 Conference received a letter on Monday from attorney Jeffrey Kessler, who represents Texas Tech quarterback Brendan Sorsby, warning the league not to take steps that could undermine a court order restoring the player’s eligibility for the 2026 college football season.

Kessler argued the conference is bound by the order because it acts “in active concert or participation” with the NCAA. He said any attempt to prevent Sorsby from practicing, playing or otherwise participating with Texas Tech in 2026 could expose the conference to claims it violated the order and could be treated as contempt.

The letter follows a ruling in the case in which the judge found Sorsby had shown a “probable right” to the relief he seeks on claims against the NCAA. Kessler also said the judge initially assigned to the case recused himself, and that a different judge was assigned and reviewed evidence from both sides before issuing the decision.

The warning arrives amid questions about how the order will be applied through a conference structure that operates alongside NCAA rules and enforcement. Kessler framed his message as a reminder that conference-level actions affecting Texas Tech could still fall under court scrutiny.

Conference actions flagged as potential contempt

Kessler said attempts to work around the order could trigger contempt claims. He cited examples including sanctioning Texas Tech under Big 12 Bylaw 3.6, encouraging or facilitating a boycott of Texas Tech football or Texas Tech athletics more broadly, or taking other steps that would effectively block Sorsby’s participation in 2026.

He also pushed back on what he described as misleading accounts of the lawsuit. Kessler said Sorsby’s case centers on how the NCAA applied its own bylaws, reinstatement guidelines and related procedures when evaluating his eligibility.

What the lawsuit covers and what comes next

Kessler said Sorsby is not challenging the NCAA’s gambling-related rules in general. Instead, he argues the NCAA did not properly apply its standards in his specific case, and that the court order is intended to keep him available for Texas Tech football activities covered by the ruling in 2026.

Next developments to watch include any response from the Big 12 or the NCAA and whether additional court filings clarify how the order will be enforced across the conference and its member schools.