Washington Supreme Court hands control over Pac-12 back to WSU, OSU in momentous ruling

The Washington Supreme Court gave Washington State and Oregon State another victory Friday over the control of what’s left of the Pac-12 Conference when it ruled to reinstate the two schools’ voting power over the rest of the conference.

Attorneys representing the University of Washington, and joined by the other nine Pac-12 schools seeking to join other conferences, had asked the state high court to immediately review and reverse an earlier ruling by Whitman County Superior Court Judge Gary Libey.

He ruled in November that WSU and OSU should have control of finances and direction of the conference that the other others decided to vacate.

But attorneys for the departing schools appealed that decision to the Washington Supreme Court.

Chief Justice Steven C. Gonzalez wrote Friday “that both motions for discretionary review are denied.” He later added: “The stay previously imposed by the Commissioner is hereby lifted.”

Gonzalez, in his order, indicated that a majority of justices decided against review, but a count was not provided.

“We are pleased with the Washington Supreme Court’s decision today,” OSU President Jayathi Murthy and WSU President Kirk Schulz said in a joint statement.

“We look forward to continuing our work of charting a path forward for the conference that is in the best interest of student-athletes and our wider university communities.”

At dispute was an earlier ruling by Libey, who found in favor of arguments by attorneys representing WSU and OSU that only officials from those two schools should get to decide the future and financial assets of the conference moving forward.

But that decision was placed on hold on Nov. 28 when Supreme Court Commissioner Michael E. Johnston issued a stay on Libey’s ruling and forwarded requests for discretionary review to the state’s high court.

“Though the question is close, the equities arguably favor UW in light of the harshness of the preliminary injunction,” Johnston wrote. “To put it more simply, the (temporary restraining order) provides a mechanism for the board, representing all 12 schools, to continue business as usual, with a proviso to act with unanimity.

“That is the less disruptive temporary posture pending this court’s decision,” he wrote in part.

In court documents leading up to the decision, attorneys representing Washington State asked the justices to follow the simple language of the Pac-12 bylaws, which essentially barred schools from board membership if they formally announced they were leaving prior to Aug. 1, 2024.

“These schools no longer have a stake in the Pac-12’s future – in fact, as competitors, they profit from its dissolution,” attorneys for WSU and OSU wrote. “The superior court’s preliminary injunction … restores governance to the two remaining schools so they may begin the time-sensitive work of rebuilding the Pac-12.”

But attorneys representing UW argued against that decision, saying that the departing schools should have a say in the Pac-12 decisions despite their intentions to leave.

“But under the trial court’s preliminary injunction, just two of the twelve members now have complete control over the Conference, the Conference’s regulation of student-athletes, and all of the revenue,” attorneys for UW wrote.

“Under the trial court’s preliminary injunction, not only are ten members immediately deprived of their governance rights – a harm all parties agree is substantial – the remaining two members are free to penalize the other ten, depriving them of resources on which their student-athletes depend.”

The denial on Friday puts Libey’s previous ruling back in control.

The lead attorney for the departing school, John Cadagan, did not return an email or phone message seeking comment.

Requests for comment from the attorneys representing WSU and OSU were directed to WSU spokesman Phil Weiler, who issued the statement from Schulz and Murthy, the two presidents.

Legally, it appears that attorneys for UW and the departing Pac-12 schools could continue to pursue the case and seek a civil trial. It may be unlikely, however, to get into a courtroom before the teams depart on Aug. 1, which would make further arguments moot.

The conference breakup was ugly.

It began on June 30, 2022, when officials from the University of Southern California and UCLA announced that those schools would be leaving the Pac-12 for the Big Ten.

“The announcement came as a shock,” attorneys for WSU and OSU wrote, “neither school had shown any sign they were contemplating leaving the Pac-12.”

The conference board then met at least 20 times without representatives from either of those schools attending. Then Colorado announced on July 27 its intention to join the Big 12 Conference.

Colorado officials were informed that their representation on the Pac-12 board automatically ceased, according to court records.

On Aug. 4, just moments before the conference could announce a media-rights deal with Apple TV, Washington and Oregon announced they, too, were jointing the Big Ten.

Arizona, Arizona State and Utah all then announced their decisions to join the Big 12.

At that point, Pac 12 Commissioner George Kliavkoff texted a reporter: “As of today we have 4 board members,” court records state.

But the bleeding hadn’t finished.

On Sept. 1, Stanford and California announced their decisions to join the Atlantic Coast Conference.

Just prior to the final defections, Kliavkoff messaged all 12 conference presidents and proposed holding a meeting “on certain matters” and “possible vote on (a) go forward governance approach.”

Kliavkoff, according to court filings, did not explain why all the departing schools were “suddenly being invited to board meetings when they had been excluded for months,” the motion states.

Officials from WSU and OSU then sued in Washington Superior Court, which led to the ruling by Libey.

He approved the preliminary injunction on Nov. 14 that gave the schools the legal right to “attempt to rebuild the Pac-12,” records state.