Sep 27, 2025; Nashville, Tennessee, USA; Vanderbilt Commodores quarterback Diego Pavia (2) against the Utah State Aggies during the second half at FirstBank Stadium. Mandatory Credit: Steve Roberts-Imagn Images

A federal appeals court dismissed the NCAA's appeal of Vanderbilt quarterback Diego Pavia's injunction in a ruling released Sept. 30, rendering the appeal as moot because Pavia was already granted full eligibility for the 2025 season. The court suggested, "Congress, the NCAA and the players can instead work together to find a way forward."

According to court documents acquired by The Tennessean, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled because the NCAA granted a waiver to Pavia and others in his situation that gave them eligibility for 2025, and a ruling would not impact Pavia's nor anyone else's eligibility for this season, the appeal was moot. The court did not vacate the December 2024 injunction that allowed Pavia to play because the NCAA itself caused the appeal to become moot by issuing Pavia eligibility.

By rendering the appeal moot, the status quo remains for Pavia and other college athletes. The NCAA waiver already granted eligibility for the 2025-26 season to any athlete who started their career in 2020 or 2021 and played at least one season at a junior college, but the waiver does not apply to any future athletes. Neither the original injunction nor the appeals ruling issued any order that would force the NCAA to change its rules on junior college eligibility.

In its appeal, the NCAA was concerned Pavia could continue suing to seek additional eligibility or that other athletes could bring endless lawsuits.

“When courts decide who is qualified to participate in this great tradition, we implicate the line separating college athletics from professional athletics. Our intervention could have unknown consequences on the intangible benefits from college sports," Circuit Judge Amul Thapar said in his concurring opinion of the decision. “Congress should consider stepping in to preserve these benefits for the millions of young athletes yet to come. Until it does so, judges should tread carefully in this area and insist on a thorough record from which to rule.”

In July, a bipartisan group of lawmakers from the U.S. House of Representatives introduced the SCORE Act (Student Compensation And Opportunity Through Rights and Endorsements) that would establish a set of national rules for college sports.

The SCORE Act includes antitrust-exemption language that specifically would allow the NCAA, and potentially the new College Sports Commission, to make operational rules affecting schools and athletes in areas that have come into legal dispute in recent years. That would include rules about transfers and the number of seasons for which athletes can compete.

On Sept. 29, as an alternative to the SCORE Act, U.S. senators Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) introduced the Student Athlete Fairness and Enforcement (SAFE) Act. The key provisions in their bill provide federal NIL protections, pooling of media rights, new broadcast revenue for Olympic and women's sports, local market broadcast access for football and basketball, protections from bad actor agents, national standards for the transfer portal and preserves the House vs. NCAA settlement's 22% revenue share cap.

“The SCORE Act is the only bill in Congress that would protect the NCAA’s longstanding academic eligibility rules - ensuring high school athletes get an opportunity to play in college," Tim Buckley, NCAA senior vice president for external affairs said in a statement. "The SCORE act has bipartisan support and the backing of hundreds of student-athlete leaders from all three divisions across the country.”

While the SAFE Act aligns more with President Donald Trump's vision for the future of college sports, the NCAA and conferences prefer the SCORE Act.

The SCORE Act has been passed by two House committees and can now be brought to the floor for a vote at any time. So far, it appears there aren’t enough votes for passage, but the NCAA and power conferences are lobbying extensive for the bill, which could be amended and then brought to the floor.

The player-friendly SAFE Act is a far-reaching bill that forces the Federal Trade Commission into oversight of college sports. It is nearly polar opposite from the SCORE bill, which seeks antitrust exemptions from the federal government to make and enforce rules on NIL, player movement and eligibility.

USA TODAY Sports reporter Matt Hayes contributed to this story.

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Judge dismisses NCAA appeal in Diego Pavia eligibility lawsuit, encourages Congress to act

Reporting by Matthew Glenesk, Aria Gerson and Steve Berkowitz, USA TODAY / USA TODAY

USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect