Gov. Tom Corbett won't appeal of his antitrust lawsuit against NCAA
Gov. Tom Corbett will not appeal the dismissal last month of his antitrust lawsuit against the NCAA, an administration attorney said Monday.
Corbett filed the suit in January in an attempt to reverse sanctions against Penn State University over the Jerry Sandusky scandal, including a $60 million fine and a four-year ban on football bowl games. U.S. District Judge Yvette Kane ruled June 6 that the suit fell short of requirements under antitrust law.
In a prepared statement, state General Counsel James D. Schultz acknowledged the case is over. But he said Kane's decision “did highlight key issues that could be beneficial to other ongoing legal cases concerning the potential harm caused by the NCAA's actions.”
Several Penn State faculty members, the family of late head football coach Joe Paterno and more than a dozen others filed a separate suit in May against the NCAA. Their 40-page complaint, another effort to void the sanctions, alleges contractual failures by the NCAA, conspiracy and defamation, among other claims.
The NCAA did not return calls Monday evening.
Schultz vowed the state will be vigilant.
“We will continue to review legal options available to defend state law, including the requirement that all fine money paid by Penn State be used to support Pennsylvania programs aimed at preventing child sexual abuse,” he said.
Sandusky, a former assistant football coach at the school, was convicted in June 2012 of abusing 10 boys over 15 years. He is serving a 30- to 60-year sentence.
Three former Penn State administrators are fighting charges of perjury, endangering the welfare of children and related crimes.
Adam Smeltz is a Trib Total Media staff writer. He can be reached at 412-380-5676 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.