Ole Miss quarterback Trinidad Chambliss appealed to the NCAA for a sixth-year of eligibility, and the NCAA has denied that appeal. Now, Chambliss will prepare to take his fight to Mississippi state court.
According to ESPN, Chambliss first requested the eligibility waiver on Jan. 9, 2026, and he cited a “medical redshirt” from his time playing for Ferris State University in 2022 as the reason.
In denying Chambliss’s eligibility, the NCAA “indicated a lack of proper medical documentation.” The NCAA said the documentation that was provided showed that Chambliss declined a 2022 surgery in favor of medication management so that “he could participate in the football season.”
Despite this evidence, Ole Miss and Chambliss claim that he “did not dress for a single game while suffering from severe, incapacitating medical conditions.”
Chambliss’s injunction hearing is scheduled for Feb. 12, 2026 in Chancery Court, Lafayette County, which is a marked difference compared to previous eligibility lawsuits brought by college student-athletes. Most former lawsuits have been filed in federal court and argued as antitrust cases. In this case, Chambliss’s legal representation filed the lawsuit at the state level and are focusing on a ‘contract claim’ rather than an antitrust violation.
According to OutKick, the key difference between these two kinds of suits is that the contract claim will only represent harm done to Chambliss and not a wide range of athletes.
The decision to file in local or state court can also be found in Charles Bediako’s recent eligibility case, as the former Alabama student-athlete fights to return to the NCAA despite having played in the NBA’s G-League. Local courts can also schedule hearings and make decisions faster than cases waiting for federal attention, which means Chambliss could be granted his temporary injunction before the end of the semester.
"Do I think NCAA rules are complicated? No. I do not,’’ NCAA president Charles Baker said. "What’s complicated is a series of decisions made in different jurisdictions that take a couple of years to work through the system. The rule is pretty clear, but it’s very frustrating when somebody can go to court and get a decision and turn the whole thing on its head."
