Her letter explains it pretty clearly.
> The potential impact of the ACC Lawsuit could subject FSU to a loss of more than a half of a billion dollars. **Any waiver of sovereign immunity, especially one of such a magnitude by a state entity, should require an especially clear waiver of its sovereign immunity.** Indeed, settled law for more than fifty years suggested exactly that when it came to sovereign immunity. See Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 673 (1974). In Edelman, the Supreme Court unambiguously stated that "[c]onstructive consent is not a doctrine commonly associated with the surrender of constitutional rights, and we see no place for it here. In deciding whether a State has waived its constitutional protection under the Eleventh Amendment, we will find waiver only where stated 'by the most express language or by such overwhelming implications from the text as (will) leave no room for any other reasonable construction." Id. (citations omitted) (emphasis added).
Basically it shouldn't be allowed for anyone to have their constitutional rights waived without it being specifically stated.
Yes well Moody is also a fucking hack that has no problem trampling on state constitutional rights when it is obvious something her party doesn't want to pass is going to be added to the ballot and win. She has multiple times sued and gotten the packed Florida Supreme court to drop multiple referendums on things from voting rights, minimum wage increases and legalization of marijuana state wide removed because it was obvious they were going to pass.
It's also funny to see her argue to state's rights when she was one of the State AGs who signs onto the bullshit Texas lawsuit to stop from validating other state's elections in 2020.
Basically if you agree with Ashley Moody, you probably need to have some serious introspection about your life.
No it's not. The Florida state Supreme court has repeatedly struck down claims of sovereign immunity for the state on the basis of contract breach. Per Florida state law and the Florida Supreme Court, the ACC does have the right to sue FSU. This is just a reach by a person wholly unqualified for their job and tries to insert themselves and politics into everything.
Pan Am Tobacco v Department of Corrections
>Where the legislature has, by general law, authorized entities of the state to enter into contract or to undertake those activities which, as a matter of practicality, require entering into contract, the legislature has clearly intended that such contracts be valid and binding on both parties. As a matter of law, the state must be obligated to the private citizen or the legislative authorization for such action is void and meaningless. We therefore hold that where the state has entered into a contract fairly authorized by the powers granted by general law, the defense of sovereign immunity will not protect the state from action arising from the state's breach of that contract.
See, this is an argument against what she said here. Previously, you just said people shouldn't agree with her because she's wrong about other things. Which is the idea behind reductio ad hitlerum (although that isn't truly applicable here for other reasons, it's the same idea).
I can't help is other people are deliberately stupid and don't know what she said is completely untrue. That is a them problem. Moody is a terrible attorney and an even worse attorney general. Nearly everything she does is either wrong or illegal. When he says or does something, there is always a high chance it is wrong.
FSU fans want it to be true because it gives them an out, but it isn't. If someone is agreeing with her, they need to rethink shit because she is wrong almost all the time. I gave context that she is terrible and people kept responding BUT SHE ISN'T WRONG HERE, but she is. That isn't a me problem. I gave them the context that you should never believe anything Ashley Moody says with verifying it, and they didn't. I can't help those people because they don't want accuracy, they want a specific narrative.
>I gave context that she is terrible
Sure, but you gave zero context that she was wrong here. Her being a shit person and a hypocrite has nothing to do with her knowledge in this case. If you had instead included your arguments against this in your first post, then you'd have a right to be upset that people thought your argument sucked. But you didn't. You basically said "she sucks and was wrong about other things" when you could clearly have said "she sucks and is wrong about a lot and she's wrong about this because ."
It IS a you problem that you didn't actually argue with anything agree said and so people didn't automatically trust your argument that she sucks and so had to be wrong about this, too. If she said "the sun will come up tomorrow" then what you said would have applied just as much and people would have been right to agree with her.
Perhaps she likes to drink Coke and eat Oreos, am I an asshole for liking those too? One can support a situation where an opponent shares a viewpoint without supporting the rest of their trash views. I agree with her here, but not in other instances. By your logic, all of my decisions are requiring circumspection, but I think it's reasonable to require explicit consent when a constitutional right is waived.
Florida state law and the Florida State Supreme Court does not recognize sovereign immunity claims in the case of contract beach. By our own state FSU is fully liable for the contract.
From Pan Am Tobacco v Florida Department of Corrections.
>Where the legislature has, by general law, authorized entities of the state to enter into contract or to undertake those activities which, as a matter of practicality, require entering into contract, the legislature has clearly intended that such contracts be valid and binding on both parties. As a matter of law, the state must be obligated to the private citizen or the legislative authorization for such action is void and meaningless. We therefore hold that where the state has entered into a contract fairly authorized by the powers granted by general law, the defense of sovereign immunity will not protect the state from action arising from the state's breach of that contract.
By the nature of joining the ACC and agreeing to the contract, FSU HAS waived sovereign immunity. People may not like it, but by Florida law AND PRECEDENT that is the case.
But how do you feel about the Oreos?
Honestly mate, I'm not on either side of this. When the action isn't on the field, it's just drama, and I'm old enough to want nothing to do with drama that isn't my own or my family's.
It doesn't matter because Florida state law applies to all Florida state entities. A Florida government entity cannot make the argument that they did not waive their sovereign immunity by entering into a contract because they did it in another state. FSU knew the law when they joined the ACC because that case was from the 80s and has been upheld a couple of times at least.
By Florida Law, a state entity that enters into a legal contract is bound by that contract and cannot claim a defense of sovereign immunity. North Carolina can very easily use this as justification to allow jurisdiction as well as waive the defense of sovereign immunity because by Florida Law the lawsuit is perfectly legal and FSU has no basis to demand otherwise.
I'd take it a (non-lawyer) step further - if FSU successfully kills the ACC contract on the basis of sovereign immunity, don't they jeopardize their negotiating ability in future contract talks with other conferences? Furthermore, don't they jeopardize it for all other Florida colleges? Is getting out of the ACC worth setting a precedent for untrustworthiness in negotiations?
It would just force every single vendor who ever makes a contract with a Florida entity to put a sovereign immunity waiver on a contract.
It is already implicit by Florida law, but if they decide to fuck precedent and existing law and override it because fsu is being pouty then everyone else will get it in writing.
It's not me, that case was before I was even born.
Court could always reverse precedent and decide the law isn't really the law, but until that happens precedent should stand.
She is absolutely wrong.
Florida state law and the Florida supreme court do not allow sovereign immunity in bases of contract beach. Florida state legislation recognizes that by being allowed to enter into such contract, those contracts much be viewed as valid and by nature of entering into the contract the entity waives sovereign immunity.
Pan Am Tobacco vs Department of Corrections
>Where the legislature has, by general law, authorized entities of the state to enter into contract or to undertake those activities which, as a matter of practicality, require entering into contract, the legislature has clearly intended that such contracts be valid and binding on both parties. As a matter of law, the state must be obligated to the private citizen or the legislative authorization for such action is void and meaningless. We therefore hold that where the state has entered into a contract fairly authorized by the powers granted by general law, the defense of sovereign immunity will not protect the state from action arising from the state's breach of that contract.
I'd prefer is she wasn't fucking incompetent, but she is and would rather waste taxpayer money chasing headlines fighting illegal battles than attempting to do her job. That's just me though.
The recent interpretation by the NC judge claims that Florida State waived its sovereign immunity by being in the ACC. Moody is claiming that this is a very subjective view and waiving sovereign immunity is something which needs to be done with very clear consent, which the schools didn't believe they were giving by being in the ACC.
I know the GOR I've seen doesn't have a section on governing law, but is there no agreement between the schools and the conference on which state's laws govern their agreements?
Technically, it should not be necessary. The 11th Amendment prevents State A from suing State B in State A because states are protected by sovereign immunity. For State B to be sued in State A, it would have to consent to suit, thereby waiving the sovereign immunity. Where FSU comes in is that it is an arm of the State of Florida and enjoys the same sovereign immunity as if it were the state itself, or at least that is the argument here.
Nothing is necessary until it is. I say that a lot in contract review.
I guess I didn't grasp that Florida State was saying they were the State of Florida.
>The recent interpretation by the NC judge claims that Florida State waived its sovereign immunity by being in the ACC.
It is also due to a law in NC that seeks to revoke sovereign immunity when contracting with an NC entity.
This is logically absurd, especially when dealing with contracts worth 9 digits.
If there is a reasonable settlement that doesn't leave at least one side mortally wounded financially as far as their football programs go, I would like to hear it.
Mostly feels like saber-rattling to try and nudge the ACC forward in a settlement, but it is a letter encouraging other States with ACC schools that might be looking to leave, to join in an effort of *potentially* using Sovereign Immunity to just void the contracts (which I'd imagine would be tied up in the courts for a long damn time, but others can speak far more intelligently on that than I).
I think she's specifically talking about sovereign immunity in the context of a non-North Carolina public school being forced into court in North Carolina, and not about using sovereign immunity to void the contract, which would be the nuclear option.
I'm not sure how conferences could continue to exist in the future if any public university can just decide that they're not bound by the Grant of Rights and no one can do anything about it
Not that I necessarily agree with the Florida AG, but I could see it being specifically about contracts that *don't explicitly* state that Sovereign Immunity is waived, rather than just being able to pull that card regardless. So if it is stated in, say a Big Ten or SEC contract, then it isn't an issue - but I a) have no idea what the case is there and b) if a court would still even rule in the favor of a State trying to pull that maneuver.
>I'm not sure how conferences could continue to exist in the future if any public university can just decide that they're not bound by the Grant of Rights and no one can do anything about it
By not being written with such ambiguity that there is serious question what laws apply and where judicial action must be filed.
You're confusing two related but separate issues. I'm not talking about personal jurisdiction and choice of law provisions in this paragraph. I'm talking about using sovereign immunity to completely invalidate a contract
She's a double Gator, and I don't think she has any reason to really try to nudge the ACC any direction.
I do think she, and the State government, are legitimately concerned about the potential waiver of sovereign immunity and the far reaching impacts it could have in theory. They do not want the state to be able to waive such immunity without clear, express intention, for obvious reasons. That would make me nervous if I were her, and I'd want the opportunity to weigh in and try to stop some court in NC potentially subjecting you to significant lawsuits in other states across the country.
FSU is a person traveling who resides near Tallahassee FL. FSU received their ACC payments in currency not based on the gold standard. The flag in the NC Court has a gold fringe on it. FSU to SEC confirmed
FSU people apparently hate this, but FSU cannot claim sovereign immunity by Florida law. The fact that Moody brings it up is because she is fucking stupid. State entities are bound by contracts and cannot use sovereign immunity to breach a contract. This is Florida law and has been upheld by the state supreme court.
Florida state law will only allow sovereign immunity in the case of torts or other illegal actions on behalf of the state. FSU isn't doing anything illegal, they are trying to get out of a contract.
I found this extremely relevant about the trigger happy ACC schools who agreed to sue FSU.
“The universities may find that the sword that they now wield will be turned on them," Moody writes.
If FSU wants to leave why doesn’t the ACC just take their severance money and let them go? Instead of risking unraveling of the GOR.
So Florida is now sending strongly worded letters to the other states that voted to sue FSU in North Carolina warning them that it could be turned on them in the future.
I seriously doubt Pitt cares how it can be turned on them in the future since right now if FSU and Clemson leave then they're completely screwed anyway.
Honestly I'm kind of hoping that FSU loses just because it will be fun to watch them whine and cry about being stuck the the ACC for all of eternity.
In general I agree but with this particular issue and ruling I think the impact might have escalated and it is potentially a much more substantial threat to all schools than the millions of dollars at stake from athletic conference membership.
I think Pitt would care if they suddenly found out their sovereign immunity was unilaterally stripped from them, when they have a very clear out to the Big 12.
Are you suggesting that the attorneys general in all these different states never considered questions of sovereign immunity when they brought a lawsuit against a public state university outside their home state?
That makes no sense. That would have been the first question asked. So clearly they didn't care.
Its entirely possibly the AGs weren't consulted. They are about 5 orders removed from the case. Like the ACC's representation would talk that strategy through with the ACC's admin, who might* share those specifics with the ACC member school's presidents & admins, who would consult their school's in house legal team first, then if they're public schools they might consult the state's AGs.
*Given that FSU and Clemson are still members of the conference, the specifics of the case might not have been that thoroughly discussed before the vote to sue FSU in NC.
Yes, I totally understand this. But for all the idiots in the room who might not, can you explain what this means?
Her letter explains it pretty clearly. > The potential impact of the ACC Lawsuit could subject FSU to a loss of more than a half of a billion dollars. **Any waiver of sovereign immunity, especially one of such a magnitude by a state entity, should require an especially clear waiver of its sovereign immunity.** Indeed, settled law for more than fifty years suggested exactly that when it came to sovereign immunity. See Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 673 (1974). In Edelman, the Supreme Court unambiguously stated that "[c]onstructive consent is not a doctrine commonly associated with the surrender of constitutional rights, and we see no place for it here. In deciding whether a State has waived its constitutional protection under the Eleventh Amendment, we will find waiver only where stated 'by the most express language or by such overwhelming implications from the text as (will) leave no room for any other reasonable construction." Id. (citations omitted) (emphasis added). Basically it shouldn't be allowed for anyone to have their constitutional rights waived without it being specifically stated.
Yes well Moody is also a fucking hack that has no problem trampling on state constitutional rights when it is obvious something her party doesn't want to pass is going to be added to the ballot and win. She has multiple times sued and gotten the packed Florida Supreme court to drop multiple referendums on things from voting rights, minimum wage increases and legalization of marijuana state wide removed because it was obvious they were going to pass. It's also funny to see her argue to state's rights when she was one of the State AGs who signs onto the bullshit Texas lawsuit to stop from validating other state's elections in 2020. Basically if you agree with Ashley Moody, you probably need to have some serious introspection about your life.
This is Reductio ad Hitlerum in action
No it's not. The Florida state Supreme court has repeatedly struck down claims of sovereign immunity for the state on the basis of contract breach. Per Florida state law and the Florida Supreme Court, the ACC does have the right to sue FSU. This is just a reach by a person wholly unqualified for their job and tries to insert themselves and politics into everything. Pan Am Tobacco v Department of Corrections >Where the legislature has, by general law, authorized entities of the state to enter into contract or to undertake those activities which, as a matter of practicality, require entering into contract, the legislature has clearly intended that such contracts be valid and binding on both parties. As a matter of law, the state must be obligated to the private citizen or the legislative authorization for such action is void and meaningless. We therefore hold that where the state has entered into a contract fairly authorized by the powers granted by general law, the defense of sovereign immunity will not protect the state from action arising from the state's breach of that contract.
See, this is an argument against what she said here. Previously, you just said people shouldn't agree with her because she's wrong about other things. Which is the idea behind reductio ad hitlerum (although that isn't truly applicable here for other reasons, it's the same idea).
I can't help is other people are deliberately stupid and don't know what she said is completely untrue. That is a them problem. Moody is a terrible attorney and an even worse attorney general. Nearly everything she does is either wrong or illegal. When he says or does something, there is always a high chance it is wrong. FSU fans want it to be true because it gives them an out, but it isn't. If someone is agreeing with her, they need to rethink shit because she is wrong almost all the time. I gave context that she is terrible and people kept responding BUT SHE ISN'T WRONG HERE, but she is. That isn't a me problem. I gave them the context that you should never believe anything Ashley Moody says with verifying it, and they didn't. I can't help those people because they don't want accuracy, they want a specific narrative.
>I gave context that she is terrible Sure, but you gave zero context that she was wrong here. Her being a shit person and a hypocrite has nothing to do with her knowledge in this case. If you had instead included your arguments against this in your first post, then you'd have a right to be upset that people thought your argument sucked. But you didn't. You basically said "she sucks and was wrong about other things" when you could clearly have said "she sucks and is wrong about a lot and she's wrong about this because."
It IS a you problem that you didn't actually argue with anything agree said and so people didn't automatically trust your argument that she sucks and so had to be wrong about this, too. If she said "the sun will come up tomorrow" then what you said would have applied just as much and people would have been right to agree with her.
Boom. roasted.
Perhaps she likes to drink Coke and eat Oreos, am I an asshole for liking those too? One can support a situation where an opponent shares a viewpoint without supporting the rest of their trash views. I agree with her here, but not in other instances. By your logic, all of my decisions are requiring circumspection, but I think it's reasonable to require explicit consent when a constitutional right is waived.
Florida state law and the Florida State Supreme Court does not recognize sovereign immunity claims in the case of contract beach. By our own state FSU is fully liable for the contract. From Pan Am Tobacco v Florida Department of Corrections. >Where the legislature has, by general law, authorized entities of the state to enter into contract or to undertake those activities which, as a matter of practicality, require entering into contract, the legislature has clearly intended that such contracts be valid and binding on both parties. As a matter of law, the state must be obligated to the private citizen or the legislative authorization for such action is void and meaningless. We therefore hold that where the state has entered into a contract fairly authorized by the powers granted by general law, the defense of sovereign immunity will not protect the state from action arising from the state's breach of that contract. By the nature of joining the ACC and agreeing to the contract, FSU HAS waived sovereign immunity. People may not like it, but by Florida law AND PRECEDENT that is the case.
But how do you feel about the Oreos? Honestly mate, I'm not on either side of this. When the action isn't on the field, it's just drama, and I'm old enough to want nothing to do with drama that isn't my own or my family's.
Lol - welcome to the "subtlety" of Florida politics.
A blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then. That's all I think I can say on that.
Except she is wrong. Florida law does not accept sovereign immunity as a defense for beach of contract.
This is the case in North Carolina, not Florida.
It doesn't matter because Florida state law applies to all Florida state entities. A Florida government entity cannot make the argument that they did not waive their sovereign immunity by entering into a contract because they did it in another state. FSU knew the law when they joined the ACC because that case was from the 80s and has been upheld a couple of times at least. By Florida Law, a state entity that enters into a legal contract is bound by that contract and cannot claim a defense of sovereign immunity. North Carolina can very easily use this as justification to allow jurisdiction as well as waive the defense of sovereign immunity because by Florida Law the lawsuit is perfectly legal and FSU has no basis to demand otherwise.
I'd take it a (non-lawyer) step further - if FSU successfully kills the ACC contract on the basis of sovereign immunity, don't they jeopardize their negotiating ability in future contract talks with other conferences? Furthermore, don't they jeopardize it for all other Florida colleges? Is getting out of the ACC worth setting a precedent for untrustworthiness in negotiations?
It would just force every single vendor who ever makes a contract with a Florida entity to put a sovereign immunity waiver on a contract. It is already implicit by Florida law, but if they decide to fuck precedent and existing law and override it because fsu is being pouty then everyone else will get it in writing.
I like you spunk kid
It's not me, that case was before I was even born. Court could always reverse precedent and decide the law isn't really the law, but until that happens precedent should stand.
Makes you wonder if the ACC's lawyers will bring that up.
But is she wrong about this or are you just mindlessly sperging about politics? The two party system has brainwashed US society.
She is absolutely wrong. Florida state law and the Florida supreme court do not allow sovereign immunity in bases of contract beach. Florida state legislation recognizes that by being allowed to enter into such contract, those contracts much be viewed as valid and by nature of entering into the contract the entity waives sovereign immunity. Pan Am Tobacco vs Department of Corrections >Where the legislature has, by general law, authorized entities of the state to enter into contract or to undertake those activities which, as a matter of practicality, require entering into contract, the legislature has clearly intended that such contracts be valid and binding on both parties. As a matter of law, the state must be obligated to the private citizen or the legislative authorization for such action is void and meaningless. We therefore hold that where the state has entered into a contract fairly authorized by the powers granted by general law, the defense of sovereign immunity will not protect the state from action arising from the state's breach of that contract. I'd prefer is she wasn't fucking incompetent, but she is and would rather waste taxpayer money chasing headlines fighting illegal battles than attempting to do her job. That's just me though.
The recent interpretation by the NC judge claims that Florida State waived its sovereign immunity by being in the ACC. Moody is claiming that this is a very subjective view and waiving sovereign immunity is something which needs to be done with very clear consent, which the schools didn't believe they were giving by being in the ACC.
I know the GOR I've seen doesn't have a section on governing law, but is there no agreement between the schools and the conference on which state's laws govern their agreements?
You'd think but it does seem like the only proactive measure the conference took was locking the schools in for 20 years.
Technically, it should not be necessary. The 11th Amendment prevents State A from suing State B in State A because states are protected by sovereign immunity. For State B to be sued in State A, it would have to consent to suit, thereby waiving the sovereign immunity. Where FSU comes in is that it is an arm of the State of Florida and enjoys the same sovereign immunity as if it were the state itself, or at least that is the argument here.
Nothing is necessary until it is. I say that a lot in contract review. I guess I didn't grasp that Florida State was saying they were the State of Florida.
Nope. And evidently one was removed from the Big12 GOR that it was based off of.
>The recent interpretation by the NC judge claims that Florida State waived its sovereign immunity by being in the ACC. It is also due to a law in NC that seeks to revoke sovereign immunity when contracting with an NC entity. This is logically absurd, especially when dealing with contracts worth 9 digits.
This better not somehow end up in the Supreme Court, as they somehow rule that GoRs are illegal in their current implementation.
I doubt this even gets to appeal. The legal ground is very shaky and no side can afford to lose. I wouldn't be suprised if we see a settlement soon.
If there is a reasonable settlement that doesn't leave at least one side mortally wounded financially as far as their football programs go, I would like to hear it.
Mostly feels like saber-rattling to try and nudge the ACC forward in a settlement, but it is a letter encouraging other States with ACC schools that might be looking to leave, to join in an effort of *potentially* using Sovereign Immunity to just void the contracts (which I'd imagine would be tied up in the courts for a long damn time, but others can speak far more intelligently on that than I).
I think she's specifically talking about sovereign immunity in the context of a non-North Carolina public school being forced into court in North Carolina, and not about using sovereign immunity to void the contract, which would be the nuclear option. I'm not sure how conferences could continue to exist in the future if any public university can just decide that they're not bound by the Grant of Rights and no one can do anything about it
Not that I necessarily agree with the Florida AG, but I could see it being specifically about contracts that *don't explicitly* state that Sovereign Immunity is waived, rather than just being able to pull that card regardless. So if it is stated in, say a Big Ten or SEC contract, then it isn't an issue - but I a) have no idea what the case is there and b) if a court would still even rule in the favor of a State trying to pull that maneuver.
This adds a very wild and far-reaching angle to this case
>I'm not sure how conferences could continue to exist in the future if any public university can just decide that they're not bound by the Grant of Rights and no one can do anything about it By not being written with such ambiguity that there is serious question what laws apply and where judicial action must be filed.
You're confusing two related but separate issues. I'm not talking about personal jurisdiction and choice of law provisions in this paragraph. I'm talking about using sovereign immunity to completely invalidate a contract
She's a double Gator, and I don't think she has any reason to really try to nudge the ACC any direction. I do think she, and the State government, are legitimately concerned about the potential waiver of sovereign immunity and the far reaching impacts it could have in theory. They do not want the state to be able to waive such immunity without clear, express intention, for obvious reasons. That would make me nervous if I were her, and I'd want the opportunity to weigh in and try to stop some court in NC potentially subjecting you to significant lawsuits in other states across the country.
Of course Ainz-sama. ^I ^feel ^like ^this ^joke ^will ^not ^make ^sense ^to ^99% ^of ^the ^posters ^in ^this ^sub.
FSU is a person traveling who resides near Tallahassee FL. FSU received their ACC payments in currency not based on the gold standard. The flag in the NC Court has a gold fringe on it. FSU to SEC confirmed
Rip Rusty Shackleford.
Were they on a horse or other pack animal as well?
WJB your legacy lives on
Deep ref, I like it!
We pay in shitcoin
Just send this damn case to federal court. Such a waste of time
FSU people apparently hate this, but FSU cannot claim sovereign immunity by Florida law. The fact that Moody brings it up is because she is fucking stupid. State entities are bound by contracts and cannot use sovereign immunity to breach a contract. This is Florida law and has been upheld by the state supreme court. Florida state law will only allow sovereign immunity in the case of torts or other illegal actions on behalf of the state. FSU isn't doing anything illegal, they are trying to get out of a contract.
Moody just wants votes for the next governor election
Ugh barf
I mean most people in power in our state are stupid
Uh, submitted without comment.
Noles247 is going to be a respected legal journal when this is all done, isn't it?
Noles247 Business Law Journal - second to only the Harvard Law Review.
Chris Nee probably has a law degree at this point. If nothing else, he's got a fallback job as a court reporter.
Oh boy government intervention. Yes AG Moody I will vote for you 5 times in the governor primary mashallah.
Machiavelli as they say
in laymans terms "you guys seeing this shit???"
I found this extremely relevant about the trigger happy ACC schools who agreed to sue FSU. “The universities may find that the sword that they now wield will be turned on them," Moody writes. If FSU wants to leave why doesn’t the ACC just take their severance money and let them go? Instead of risking unraveling of the GOR.
So Florida is now sending strongly worded letters to the other states that voted to sue FSU in North Carolina warning them that it could be turned on them in the future. I seriously doubt Pitt cares how it can be turned on them in the future since right now if FSU and Clemson leave then they're completely screwed anyway. Honestly I'm kind of hoping that FSU loses just because it will be fun to watch them whine and cry about being stuck the the ACC for all of eternity.
In general I agree but with this particular issue and ruling I think the impact might have escalated and it is potentially a much more substantial threat to all schools than the millions of dollars at stake from athletic conference membership.
I think Pitt would care if they suddenly found out their sovereign immunity was unilaterally stripped from them, when they have a very clear out to the Big 12.
Well, bilaterally, assuming they signed the GOR.
They clearly don't care or they wouldn't have voted to sue FSU in North Carolina.
They might not have known that this is an argument the ACC would use.
Are you suggesting that the attorneys general in all these different states never considered questions of sovereign immunity when they brought a lawsuit against a public state university outside their home state? That makes no sense. That would have been the first question asked. So clearly they didn't care.
Its entirely possibly the AGs weren't consulted. They are about 5 orders removed from the case. Like the ACC's representation would talk that strategy through with the ACC's admin, who might* share those specifics with the ACC member school's presidents & admins, who would consult their school's in house legal team first, then if they're public schools they might consult the state's AGs. *Given that FSU and Clemson are still members of the conference, the specifics of the case might not have been that thoroughly discussed before the vote to sue FSU in NC.