YOUNGSTOWN A magistrate has denied a request to hand down a temporary restraining order against the Ohio High School Athletic Association (OHSAA) ruling preventing Ursuline High School students who transferred to another school from playing football for the 2025 football season.

Attorneys for the OHSAA and from Betras Kopp took part in a telephone hearing with the court on Tuesday morning.

Attorneys filed for an injunction in the Mahoning County Common Pleas Court on Monday, asking a judge to allow Ursuline transfers the opportunity to play football.

The injunction asked for the OHSAA to grant the exemptions for the students named in it, and also asked the judge to grant a temporary restraining order that would prohibit OSHAA from enforcing their ruling.

Just before 4:30 p.m. Tuesday, a magistrate in Judge Anthony Donofrio's court denied this request. 

Under OHSAA's ruling, Ursuline transfers would be eligible to play in the 2026 season, but only after sitting out at least five regular-season games, unless approved under an exemption within OHSAA's bylaws.

The filing discussed one of those exemptions.

"OHSAA Bylaw 4-1-1 provides an exception for student athletes who have met all substantial eligibility requirements, but is declared ineligible due solely to administrative error on the part of the school/school personnel, ... provided it can be shown that the student's actions or failure to act did not contribute in any way to the administrative error that caused the declaration of ineligibility in the first place," the filing reads.

According to the filing, none of the students or families named in the document were involved in the alleged hazing or harassment incidents.

"Somebody needs to stand up for them. You know, I played high school football. There’s a lot of folks around here that can relate to high school football and we know it is in this area. It’s devastating. I mean there’s seniors that we represent that will never play football again in their lives at the high school level and some don’t have the ability to play at the next level," said Frank Cassese, attorney at Betras Kopp Attorneys at Law.

The filing brought up another exemption within OHSAA's bylaws.

"OHSAA Blyaw 4-7-2 provides an exception that states as a result of the conduct of an adult associated with the school, provided a specific criteria, a student who is compelled to transfer to protect their mental and/or physical well-being, the Executive Director may waive all or part of that student's eligibility provided," the filing reads. 

The magistrate's decision says a party requesting a Temporary Restraining Order must show there is a "substantial likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits," the plaintiff will suffer "irreparable injury" if the injunction is not granted," no third parties will be unjustifiably harmed is the injunction is granted and the public interest will be served by the injunction.

The ruling broke down all four of those factors, stating that the request did not satisfy all of them.

For the first factor, the magistrate states that the plaintiffs failed to offer any supporting evidence for the claim that the OHSAA's determination was arbitrary.

"Plaintiffs suggested that [OHSAA] should have invoked Bylaw 4-1-1. However, as explained by the defendant, this bylaw is inapplicable, and even if it was applied, plaintiffs would not achieve the outcome they are seeking," the ruling reads.

The ruling states that OHSAA relied upon Bylaw 4-7-3, which is the bylaw applied when making the original decision to prohibit students from playing in 2025 unless they had an exemption, which the court cannot grant.

"If the plaintiffs want to seek an exception, they must invoke the application process as outlined by the OHSAA. Until then, they have not exhausted their administrative authorities and this court is without authority to intervene," the ruling reads.

The ruling goes on to state that the plaintiffs failed to show that granting the request would not cause unjustifiable harm to third parties.

"Many individuals and schools would likely be impacted by the court order granting this extraordinary relief. The new schools and potentially players would be impacted, the schools' competitors would be impacted and the rankings and point system could be impacted, which could cause more widespread effects," the ruling reads.

Finally, the ruling states that while the court is sympathetic to the plaintiff's plight, the broader public interest is always best served when the relevant rules, bylaws and regulations are enforced to create a fair, equitable framework for all.

Despite this ruling, attorney Frank Casssese tells 21 News this matter "is not over" and they plan to object to the magistrate's decision. This sentiment was echoed in a statement from attorney Brian Kopp of Betras Kopp Attorneys at Law.

"We will immediately begin deposing OHSAA officials and pressing our case in court because the organization does not have an emergency process that would enable our clients to appeal the ruling that bars them from playing football during the 2025-26 school year," Kopp said.

Kopp's full statement can be read below:

"We are extremely disappointed for the young people impacted by Magistrate Butler's decision, and we look forward to having the matter heard by Common Pleas Judge Anthony Donofrio as quickly as possible."


"The OHSAA's actions, much like the past behavior of the NCAA, clearly demonstrate that the organization does not care about Ohio's student athletes."


"We will immediately begin deposing OHSAA officials and pressing our case in court because the organization does not have an emergency process that would enable our clients to appeal the ruling that bars them from playing football during the 2025-2026 school year."


"The OHSAA's arrogance and lack of consideration for the best interests of young people is absolutely unacceptable. I am the son of a highly respected, long-time high school football coach and I had my own battles with the organization many years ago when I played for him."

"We are putting the OHSAA on notice: we will not back down."
 

Ursuline High School has been in the public eye since early September when a federal civil rights lawsuit was filed detailing allegations of hazing, harassment and sexual assault from members of the football team and accuses the team's coaches and the school's administration of ignoring or downplaying the issue and trying to cover it up.

In the weeks following, several teams canceled their games against Ursuline until Ursuline made the final decision to cancel the remainder of its football season after just two games were played.

After the OHSAA made its ruling regarding transfer students, one Ursuline coach and several parents of students said the players who were not involved in the allegations did not deserve to be punished.

You can read more about the allegations, the cancelation of the football season and the reactions of students and their families in our related coverage below.

RELATED COVERAGE: