Justice Gorsuch shows once again that he is the rockstar on The Court.
He opened with a informative and concise history of college sports, money, and the NCAA.
This is section IA of the opinion and I highly recommend it as an interesting history of how college sports arrived at its present condition.
He follows with pages of legal mumbo jumbo that only an anti-trust academic can enjoy as he discusses markets, regulation, and the NCAA arguments before SCOTUS.
Gorsuch concludes with what I consider to be an astounding comment by a jurist and is rare in today's world. Gorsuch simply says the court doesn't have all the answers to these complicated issues as he affirms the trial court. Every judge in America needs to read and understand what Gorsuch wrote:
When it comes to fashioning an antitrust remedy, we acknowledge that caution is key. Judges must resist the temptation to require that enterprises employ the least re- strictive means of achieving their legitimate business objec- tives. Judges must be mindful, too, of their limitations—as generalists, as lawyers, and as outsiders trying to under- stand intricate business relationships. Judges must re- main aware that markets are often more effective than the heavy hand of judicial power when it comes to enhancing consumer welfare. And judges must be open to clarifying and reconsidering their decrees in light of changing market realities. Courts reviewing complex business arrange- ments should, in other words, be wary about invitations to “set sail on a sea of doubt.” United States v. Addyston Pipe & Steel Co., 85 F. 271, 284 (CA6 1898) (Taft, J.). But we do not believe the district court fell prey to that temptation. Its judgment does not float on a sea of doubt but stands on firm ground—an exhaustive factual record, a thoughtful le- gal analysis consistent with established antitrust princi- ples, and a healthy dose of judicial humility.
Judicial humility! Imagine that. For 52 years I thought that such a concept was an oxymoron, especially for SCOTUS.