Due process, evidence, policy and procedure.

Two former students at the University of Louisville appeal a lower court's dismissal of their suit against the university and the NCAA. Stephen Graham and Brett Lohrke received scholarships to play for the university's football team. The two attended football training sessions but both dropped from the team before the academic year began. The university withdrew the scholarships and the two students paid their own tuition. They appealed the decision to withdraw their scholarships to a university panel. Their appeal failed and the two students filed suit in a Franklin County court. Graham attempted to return to the football team but university officials blocked his participation when they learned of his pending law suit. The county court ruled in favor of Graham and Lohrke, ordering the university to reimburse the students' tuition. Graham eventually transferred to another NCAA division I school, but the association's rules barred his participation in athletics for the balance of his college career. Lohrke transferred to a division III school. NCAA rules permitted Lohake's eligibility if Louisville issued a letter of waiver to the division III school. Louisville did not issue the waiver letter, contending it never received a request for the waiver from Lohrke. Graham and Lohrke filed suit in federal court, arguing the university and the NCAA denied the pair due process. The NCAA and the university filed motions for summary judgment.

A circuit court granted the university's and the NCAA's motions for summary judgment. The court ruled the two students failed to adequately state a case against the defendants. Citing errors in the circuit court's ruling, Graham and Lohrke now appeal.

Graham and Lohrke lose. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the lower jurisdiction's decision. The appeals court ruled Lohrke's complaint to be moot. The court noted the university issued a letter of waiver to Lohrke's. As to Graham's complaint, the appeals court ruled he failed to adequately state a case against NCCC, which denied him eligibility. The appeals court ruled it found no reversible errors in the lower court's ruling.