NCAA Requests Judge Recusal in Alabama Basketball Case
The NCAA has filed a motion requesting the recusal of a judge in a lawsuit involving Alabama basketball player Charles Bediako. The action comes amid concerns about impartiality, as the judge, James Roberts, is identified as a donor to the University of Alabama.
NCAA’s Request for Judge Recusal
On Tuesday, the NCAA submitted the recusal motion in the Tuscaloosa Circuit Court. According to the document, while the NCAA does not claim actual bias on the part of the judge, they believe that an appearance of impropriety exists.
Key Details of the Motion
- The judge, James Roberts, has a documented connection to the University of Alabama.
- The motion cites extensive media attention regarding the judge’s alleged partiality.
- Several articles were attached as evidence, including reporting from AL.com.
The NCAA expressed confidence in the judicial process. However, they advocate for recusal to eliminate any public speculation about the integrity of the proceedings.
Background on Charles Bediako’s Lawsuit
Charles Bediako filed his own lawsuit against the NCAA on Tuesday. He is seeking both temporary and permanent injunctions to regain eligibility to play for Alabama. This follows his departure for the 2023 NBA Draft, in which he was not selected.
- Bediako has spent the past three years playing in the NBA’s G League.
- After going undrafted, he signed a two-way NBA contract.
- The NCAA asserts that such contracts prevent players from regaining eligibility.
Court Developments
Following the lawsuit, Judge Roberts granted Bediako a temporary restraining order, allowing him to take the court for the upcoming game against Missouri. This game is set to begin at 7 p.m. CT on Tuesday.
A hearing on the injunction was originally scheduled for Tuesday but was postponed due to inclement weather affecting the NCAA’s representation. The restraining order has been extended for an additional 10 days, awaiting the new hearing date.
The NCAA emphasizes that the legal standards for recusal focus on the appearance of bias. They argue that maintaining the integrity of the judicial process is paramount amidst the intense scrutiny surrounding this case.
