IBJNews

NCAA sues Pennsylvania over $60M Sandusky abuse fine

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The National Collegiate Athletic Association has filed a lawsuit accusing Pennsylvania of trying to confiscate a $60 million sanction imposed against Pennsylvania State University in the Jerry Sandusky child-abuse case.

A new law that lets the state control the use of the funds violates the U.S. Constitution and can’t be enforced, the NCAA said in a complaint filed Wednesday in federal court in Harrisburg, Pa. The bill, passed this month and enacted Thursday, applies to all large fines levied against state-supported institutions.

The state is “attempting to legislate where private parties spend their money, and to confiscate funds intended for the victims of child sexual abuse nationwide,” the NCAA, the governing body for most U.S. college sports, said in the complaint.

Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett’s office is reviewing the complaint, spokeswoman Janet Kelley said Wednesday in an email.

Corbett supported and signed the law “because he believes it is important to keep this money in Pennsylvania,” Kelley said in the email. “He believes it makes sense and is the right thing to do."

Corbett sued the Indianapolis-based NCAA in January, challenging the fine levied against the school for its failure to prevent sexual abuse by Sandusky, a former Penn State assistant football coach who was convicted of molesting 10 boys. The governor accused the NCAA of using the Sandusky offenses as a “pretext” to impose unprecedented sanctions in violation of antitrust laws.

The NCAA countered in papers filed this month that Corbett has no standing to bring the case and is seeking to undo an agreement “freely entered into” by Penn State.

The Pennsylvania Institution of Higher Education Consent Decree Endowment Act attempts to “negate a valid contract” between the NCAA and Penn State, the sports association said in court papers. The act, which says that fines levied from a school become property of the state, “amounts to a taking of private property without just compensation,” the NCAA said.

The governing body is asking a judge to declare the law unconstitutional and bar its enforcement.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Death Penalty
    It might be time for the Colligate Athletic "Death Penalty" for Penn State Football. The prosecution provided more than enough factual information for a jury to determine fault in the Sandusky matter, however it might be time to review all email communications between the university and the State House, just to ensure the coverup did not actually make it all the way to the legislature and governor.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT