A request for an injunction by parents of former Ursuline football players regarding the Ohio High School Athletic Association’s decision to rule the student-athletes ineligible was denied in the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas on Tuesday.

Magistrate Nicole M. Butler ruled that the ex-Ursuline families did not meet the requirements for a temporary restraining order or injunction.

In order to be granted a restraining order or injunction, the plaintiffs must show all four elements to move forward.

¯ There is substantial likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits.

¯ The plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted.

¯ No third parties will be unjustifiably harmed if the injunction is granted.

¯ The public interest will be served by the injunction.

The ruling highlighted that the players did not file for an appeal through the OHSAA office, and by extension, have not exhausted all possible action available to them through the OHSAA bylaws.

The ruling also stated that OHSAA Executive Director David Ute never said the players were “completely barred” from competition, only that they were ineligible unless they were approved for an exception.

“Those duties have been relegated to the Executive Director of the OHSAA,” the ruling stated. “If the plaintiffs want to seek an exception, they must invoke the application process as outlined by the OHSAA. Until then, they have not exhausted their administrative remedies, and this court is without authority to intervene.”

In relation to injury to the plaintiffs, the ruling noted that the players “have demonstrated irreparable harm” by being ruled ineligible. However, it also stated that the players would likely miss time in the second half of the football season regardless of whether they filed for an exception.

The third item of the findings stated that an injunction could impact other OHSAA member schools if “extraordinary relief” was granted in the case. It noted that making the players eligible could have “widespread effects” on the rankings and point system the OHSAA uses to determine the high school football tournament participants.

The fourth and final finding stated that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate that granting the restraining order would serve public interest.

“Certainly the plaintiffs would be served by such and order, and this court is sympathetic to the plaintiffs’ plight if they are innocent parties, as they have been negatively impacted in so many ways,” the court document stated. “Nonetheless, the broad public interest is always best served when the relevant rules, bylaws, and regulations are enforced to create a fair and equitable framework for all, and to ensure clear expectations.”

Frank Caseese, the attorney representing the Ursuline families, said the plan is to object the decision.

“We are extremely disappointed for the young people impacted by Magistrate Butler’s decision, and we look forward to having the matter heard by Common Pleas Judge Anthony Donofrio as quickly as possible,” Casees said in a statement.

“The OHSAA’s actions, much like the past behavior of the NCAA, clearly demonstrate that the organization does not care about Ohio’s student athletes.

“We will immediately begin deposing OHSAA officials and pressing our case in court because the organization does not have an emergency process that would enable our clients to appeal the ruling that bars them from playing football during the 2025-2026 school year.

“The OHSAA’s arrogance and lack of consideration for the best interests of young people is absolutely unacceptable. I am the son of a highly respected, long-time high school football coach and I had my own battles with the organization many years ago when I played for him.

“We are putting the OHSAA on notice: we will not back down.”