The Alabama Supreme Court on Thursday heard oral arguments from attorneys representing the NCAA and former Alabama defensive coordinator and Tennessee coach Jeremy Pruitt regarding Pruitt’s lawsuit against the organization filed last year.
The NCAA had petitioned the state’s highest court to direct the trial court in DeKalb County to dismiss Pruitt’s case based on a lack of jurisdiction over the NCAA. The nine-justice panel of the Alabama Supreme Court heard about an hour of arguments in Dothan’s Houston Academy from both sides and will issue its decision at a later date.
Pruitt sued the NCAA in DeKalb County in March 2025 seeking $100 million as a result of NCAA penalties levied against Pruitt following his firing by Tennessee in 2021. Most notably, Pruitt was given a six-year “show cause” order by the NCAA in 2023 that required schools to seek NCAA approval in hiring him.
The NCAA last October green-lighted Jacksonville State to hire Pruitt as an analyst under several conditions. Pruitt separately was awarded an injunction by a DeKalb County judge last December to prevent the NCAA from enforcing its show-cause order, but the judge dissolved that order in April upon Pruitt’s request after his attorneys stated in filings that it did not have its desired effect in calming schools’ concerns about hiring him.
Pruitt’s attorneys wrote in filings opposing the NCAA’s petition to the Alabama Supreme Court that in addition to Jacksonville State, the University of Alabama also attempted to hire Pruitt in 2023, as CBS Sports reported. At the time, then-coach Nick Saban was seeking a replacement for departed defensive coordinator Pete Golding. Saban instead hired Kevin Steele and both coaches retired following the 2023 season.
Pruitt’s attorneys filed sealed testimony from Saban that stated, according to their public filings, “that UA did not hire [Pruitt] based on the threat of penalties from the NCAA” during its ongoing investigation at the time.
In an excerpt included from Saban’s testimony, he said, “Yeah, I wanted to bring Jeremy back on staff as soon as I could. A, because, you know, I couldn’t for a while because of his circumstance. I was hopeful that when his circumstance got resolved, I would be able to hire him, and could not.” When asked if he was discouraged from hiring Pruitt, Saban said, “Yes.”
Also included in Pruitt’s filings was sealed testimony from former Texas A&M coach Jimbo Fisher, former Florida coach Billy Napier, Georgia coach Kirby Smart and agent Jimmy Sexton. During Thursday’s hearing, justice Brady Mendheim referenced Fisher’s testimony as the Aggies taking “more direct steps” than Alabama to hire Pruitt.
Pruitt’s attorneys argued his potential hiring by Alabama is evidence that the state’s courts have jurisdiction over his case against the NCAA, because its show-cause penalty was affecting his employment opportunities within the state. Justice Greg Cook pushed back against that claim in Thursday’s hearing, saying his failed hiring by UA is an “effect” of the NCAA’s investigation and enforcement actions that took place in other states like Tennessee or the organization’s headquarters in Indiana.
Attorneys for the NCAA argued Thursday that the show-cause order was, “not entered against Jeremy Pruitt. The show cause order is entered nationwide as to all of the member institutions,” and the organization did not specifically initiate action against Pruitt within Alabama. Justices also challenged that point Thursday, citing the NCAA’s inherent oversight over the 18 member institutions in the state.
Justice Cook raised the possibility of the case being moved from DeKalb County, where Pruitt resides, and an attorney for Pruitt requested the case be moved to Tuscaloosa County if the trial court venue was deemed improper.
