JUST NOW;After brutal warning michigan head coach Jim  Harbaugh decided to

baugh, the head coach of the University of Michigan, was suspended by the Big Ten on Friday for the remainder of the 2023 regular season, with immediate effect. Due to an in-person scouting and sign-stealing scandal involving former Wolverines football analyst Connor Stalions, the conference claims the school broke the Big Ten’s sportsmanship policy, giving the Wolverines a “unfair competitive advantage that compromised the integrity of competition.”

The institution denounced the conference’s decision in a statement, claiming that it did not represent an unbiased investigation and instead violated “fundamental tenets of due process” by caving in to “pressure from other Conference members.” The school also stated that in order to “keep the disciplinary action from happening,” it plans to “seek a court order” with Harbaugh.

The Wolverines’ scheduled Saturday game against Penn State will probably result in a quick legal action from the university to maintain Harbaugh’s eligibility due to the ban. In the most recent College Football Playoff rankings, Michigan (ranked No. 3) and Penn State (ranked No. 10) are both among the top 10. Harbaugh will also be absent from his team’s games against Maryland on November 18 and Ohio State, their bitter rival, on November 25.

The Big Ten states that although Harbaugh is prohibited from being “present at the game venue” during the ban, he is permitted to coach the team during practices and “other football team activities” in an apparent attempt to mitigate the punishment—likely due to legal considerations that will be covered later. Thus, Harbaugh is able to carry on working with his players and coaching staff while he is “suspended.”

Neither Michigan nor Harbaugh may file an appeal with the Big Ten. Rather, Michigan (and consequently Harbaugh) is anticipated to request a temporary restraining order (TRO) in a state court, as stated by Sportico. A TRO would stop the conference from enforcing the fine until more legal action is taken. Harbaugh has enlisted the help of a formidable sports lawyer, Tom Mars, who previously served on the NCAA’s complex case unit and has represented Bret Bielema, Justin Fields, and Houston Nutt.

From a football perspective, a TRO would guarantee Harbaugh could continue to coach, if necessary, through the end of the season and at least on Saturday, with further legal maneuvers.

The fundamental legal argument put out by Michigan is that the Big Ten violated its own policies by enforcing the laws of the NCAA, a separate membership body, without authorization.

The fact that judges in Michigan are elected could work to the school’s advantage. Although voters sometimes lack knowledge about potential judges, the judge appointed to Michigan’s case is soon to become well-known.

The situation’s politics are clearly clear. In a letter sent on Wednesday, eleven legislators from Michigan urged Big Ten commissioner Tony Petitti to postpone his decision until the NCAA has finished looking into the situation. The conclusion of the NCAA is not set in stone.

Obtaining a TRO can be challenging, particularly in cases when a member institution has concerns about how its organization interprets membership regulations. Members of organizations are required to abide by their own policies; otherwise, they would not join or stay. Evidence that the organization acted arbitrarily or capriciously is typically required by courts. An argument that the organization “got it wrong” would be insufficient given the high threshold that must be met. It cannot have enforced its own policies or treated a member harshly than another for the same transgression.

The Big Ten’s sportsmanship policy, as written, gives Petitti broad, unquestionable discretion in assigning blame. Additionally, he has the exclusive, unchallengeable authority to impose a fine of $10,000 or less or a two-game suspension. A more severe penalty that is final and non-appealable must be reviewed and approved by the conference executive committee.

Petitti has the authority to apply the policy “to accommodate any behavior, which may occur in any setting, deemed by the commissioner” and to impose penalties for any “actions that are offensive to the integrity of the competition, actions that offend civility, and actions of disrespect.” The decision made by attorney Petitti is “final and not subject to appeal,” and he is free to “consider any evidence that he or she deems relevant.”

The Big Ten may argue that this wording is meant to provide the commissioner the leeway to respond as quickly and forcefully as he thinks proper. Then, given that the Big Ten charges Michigan with wrongdoing “over multiple years,” it could argue that the state’s purported errors were severe and careless.

In order for Michigan to prevail in court, the judge must value contextual reasons in addition to the policy’s clear wording.

The school may contend that even though the policy’s plain language gives the commissioner broad discretion, doing so would violate fundamental principles of justice. Furthermore, considering that all save Northwestern, one of the conference’s member schools, are public establishments, it might be considered illogical. The protections of the Constitution must be followed by those schools. They would appear reluctant to become a part of a conference whose actions could put member schools in legal hot water.

Additionally, Michigan may argue that because the policy has never been applied in this way before, the school was unaware that it may serve as justification for a coaching ban. In an attempt to overturn the NFL’s suspension of him for allegedly conspiring to slightly underinflate footballs (Deflategate), former Michigan quarterback Tom Brady invoked this justification. Brady’s lawyers maintained that he was not involved in any such plot and that even if he had been, he would not have been placed on notice that his suspension for equipment tampering would be possible. Stickum was utilized by other NFL players to make it easier to catch a football and they too had heated footballs, but they were not fined or suspended for four games.

Michigan will then counter that Stallion acted independently and that the Wolverines’ coaches did not utilize his results. The school will also make note of the comparable scouting deceptions used by competitor schools. Michigan may argue that treating the story differently is arbitrary to the extent that it is true.

The Wolverines may also contend that the conference’s decision to render a verdict on an issue that is still the subject of an ongoing NCAA investigation is biased and procedurally unjust. Given that witnesses are not being sworn in and that NCAA and Big Ten investigators are private individuals without the authority to summon witnesses, a more thorough probe might be necessary. It may be argued that the Big Ten was unnecessarily severe in dropping the punishment, especially since Michigan had already traveled for the Penn State game on a holiday Friday.

Michigan may contend that the Big Ten is operating beyond of its authority to the degree that it is using NCAA regulations as justification for punishing Harbaugh. Relevant NCAA bylaws demand that head coaches foster a culture of compliance, forbid off-campus, in-person scouting of potential opponents during the same season, hold head coaches accountable for all staff members who report to them directly or indirectly, and mandate that schools protect institutional control. Members who violate the rules may be punished by the NCAA, not by other NCAA members.