NFL Lockout Watch, Day 46: Nelson Rules Lockout Is Illegal, NFL Appeals Ruling

Confusion reigned in the NFL last night and this morning after a federal judge ruled the 46-day-old lockout was illegal, but unexpectedly did not stay her decision pending appeal and ordered an end to the work stoppage. The NFL also late last night in a court filing said if forced to open for business, it may ask the class of players suing the league to post a bond in the event the decision is overturned. Nevertheless, the NFL said after the late afternoon ruling that its business would not open this morning pending a planned emergency stay to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, which could take several days. The NFL is not going to begin implementing new work rules unless the stay is decided for the players at the 8th Circuit, where the league has a high degree of confidence it will prevail. Judge Susan Nelson ruled for the players in the case Brady v NFL, which was filed March 11 seeking to lift the lockout and end most free agency restrictions. Her ruling is confined only to the lockout. Mark Levinstein, a players labor attorney for Williams & Connolly, said once the union had decertified March 11, there was no legal argument for locking out the players. But Gary Roberts, a former league outside counsel, predicted the 8th Circuit would overturn last night’s decision. “I think she took the players brief and basically copied it,” he said. Roberts also had an interesting twist on how the NFL might respond to players showing up for work this morning. While Nelson enjoined the league from imposing a lockout, he said there is nothing from stopping individual teams from doing so. Questioned wouldn’t the teams not paying bonuses be guilty of contract violations, Roberts replied yes but still the players would then have to sue for their money.

LOOKING AHEAD: That level of uncertainty underscored just how much most observers, and likely the league, expected a stay. Conceivably, the league could in a few days get the stay and win out the rest of the way, but players due offseason bonuses might sue to get their money arguing there was a few-day window with no lockout. Some observers said the league has a grace period of a day to comply, though Nelson’s decision simply stated the lockout is enjoined. And she wrote that players were suffering irreparable harm. It is also highly uncertain what the league will do on work rules, though many assume the sport will impose ‘10 rules if it decides it must re-open. The players suing the league are claiming nearly all free agency restrictions are illegal. The league has called this a catch-22, claiming the players are asking for the lockout to be gone to force the league to impose an illegal system. But Nelson ruled she was making no decision on whether free agency restrictions are illegal, so the league is safe to implement them. “An injunction is not an adjudication that the NFL is liable for any antitrust violation,” she wrote. The NFL wrote in a brief late last night asking for a stay she indicated strongly in her ruling she would turn down, “failing to stay the injunction -- even for the brief period of time until it is taken up on appeal -- would irreparably harm the NFL. The clubs would be forced to choose between the irreparable harm of unrestricted free agency or the irreparable harm of more treble-damages lawsuits.” As a result, the league on the last page of the 15-page brief filed with her last night wrote in a footnote, “If the Order is not stayed, the NFL reserves the right to seek an order requiring plaintiffs to post a bond.” The league then cited a federal statute that a court can only issue an injunction if the plaintiff posts security in the event it is found the defendant was wrongly enjoined. The league said the complexity of valuing the bond was another reason to stay the ruling.