Tennessee QB Sues NCAA Over Eligibility Dispute

Judge extends temporary restraining order as case awaits ruling

Published on Feb. 14, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

Tennessee quarterback Joey Aguilar has filed a lawsuit against the NCAA challenging the organization's rules for junior college player eligibility. A judge has extended a temporary restraining order that allows Aguilar to continue practicing with the team while the case is pending a ruling.

Why it matters

This case could have significant implications for junior college transfers seeking additional years of NCAA eligibility. The outcome could set a precedent that impacts other student-athletes in similar situations.

The details

Aguilar's lawsuit argues that the NCAA's five-year rule to complete four seasons of play should not apply to junior college players, since JUCOs are not NCAA member institutions. Aguilar played at Diablo Valley Community College before transferring to Appalachian State in 2023 and then Tennessee in 2025, where he had a standout season as the Vols' starting quarterback.

  • The case was heard in Knox County, Tennessee on Friday, February 13, 2026.
  • The judge extended the temporary restraining order that allows Aguilar to continue practicing with the team while awaiting a ruling.

The players

Joey Aguilar

The Tennessee quarterback who is suing the NCAA over eligibility rules for junior college transfers.

Chris Heagerty

The judge presiding over Aguilar's case against the NCAA.

NCAA

The organization that sets the rules for student-athlete eligibility that Aguilar is challenging in his lawsuit.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“I can't rule from the bench on this. Particularly when a Tennessee statute is involved.”

— Chris Heagerty, Judge (timesnews.net)

What’s next

The judge stated that a ruling in the case would come 'in a very short order'.

The takeaway

This case highlights the complex eligibility rules for junior college transfers and the potential for legal challenges to the NCAA's authority over student-athlete eligibility. The outcome could set an important precedent for future cases involving similar disputes.