Former SMU women’s basketball player Kyla Deck has filed a federal lawsuit against the NCAA and SMU, challenging transfer portal restrictions she claims violate federal antitrust laws. Deck’s case highlights the limitations imposed by the NCAA’s transfer portal window, which restricts players from transferring if they missed the designated 2025–26 period to enter the portal. Although Deck gained an additional year of eligibility due to a recent court ruling, she says she cannot transfer because she did not enter the portal during that window, and SMU has informed her there is no roster spot for her. The lawsuit requests an injunction to block the enforcement of these transfer rules and seeks damages.

This legal action stems from a July 31, 2026 decision in the Wisne v. NCAA case, where a judge granted players born in 2002 or later a fifth year of eligibility for collegiate competition. Despite the NCAA’s permission for such extensions, the "ghost transfer" rule prevents athletes who overlooked the transfer portal deadline from changing schools, limiting their options and potentially their playing opportunities. Deck is among thousands of Division I athletes affected by this ruling but faces additional barriers because of the portal restrictions. Many athletes have challenged these transfer limits through state-specific lawsuits, finding some success, but Deck’s federal complaint focuses on antitrust violations.

Deck’s injury history complicated her situation, as she initially sought a waiver to return for another season without transferring. The complaint emphasizes that she is not asking the court to force SMU to retain her or offer scholarship aid, but to remove the penalties blocking her transfer to another institution. This legal challenge also implicates SMU, which has agreed to implement the NCAA’s transfer rules, making the university a co-defendant. Deck’s attorney asserts that the NCAA’s sudden rule changes harm athletes by denying them the opportunity to pursue their careers freely, underscoring a need for judicial intervention to prevent schools from being punished for signing players outside the transfer window.

The outcome of this case could set a significant benchmark in college sports law, particularly affecting transfer regulations nationwide. If the federal court sides with Deck, it could open the door for many players to bypass the NCAA’s current portal rules, dismantling restrictions that have for years shaped athlete mobility. As college sports face increasing scrutiny over athlete rights and eligibility, this lawsuit adds to the growing pressure on the NCAA to reform its policies in ways that better accommodate player interests and fairness. Both the NCAA and SMU have so far declined to comment on the lawsuit’s details.