> Essentially, the Statute requires any national collegiate athletic association to provide a Nevada institution, employee, student-athlete, or booster who is accused of a rules infraction with certain procedural due process protections during an enforcement proceeding in which sanctions may be imposed. Many of the procedures required by the Statute are not included in the NCAA enforcement program. For example, the NCAA does not provide the accused with the right to confront all witnesses, the right to have all written statements signed under oath and notarized, the right to have an official record kept of all proceedings, or the right to judicial review of a Committee decision.
I'm not sure I really agree with the court's reasoning that it's a per se violation of the commerce clause but the rational is in Section B @ 638 if you're interesting.
Here's hoping this precedent gets overturned but I'm not terribly optimistic.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dormant_Commerce_Clause
[2] https://casetext.com/case/national-collegiate-athletic-assn-...
There might be an interstate-commerce-clause justification here on the side of the NCAA, but it seems pretty thin. IANAL, of course, so what do I know.