A federal magistrate in Oakland threw out Dominik Calhoun's antitrust suit against the body that governs California high school sports for a second time last week — but the dismissal was a procedural setback on the one claim that already survived the federation's strongest defense, not a verdict on whether the state can bar its athletes from cashing in on their own names.

Calhoun, an East Bay product now playing safety at Boise State, is suing the California Interscholastic Federation over rules that touch every prep athlete in the Bay Area: limits on transfers, on prize money, and — the heart of the case — a bylaw that forbids students from profiting off their name, image and likeness when that likeness is tied to their school. On August 20, U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler granted the CIF's dismissal motion again, giving Calhoun until September 10 to refile or take the fight to the Ninth Circuit. But the ruling that will actually decide this case came in January — and on the question that matters most, Calhoun won it.

The second dismissal, first reported by Los Angeles Times columnist Eric Sondheimer (external source, opens in a new tab), reads on its face like a defeat: the case is out of court, and the clock is running. Sondheimer flagged a wrinkle that has drawn almost no attention — the federation had frozen its own review of possible transfer-rule changes, floated back in April 2025, while the litigation was pending. A dismissal could restart that review. Put plainly, one former athlete's lawsuit has quietly been holding statewide transfer policy in place.

To see why "tossed again" oversells it, go back to Beeler's January 9 order in Calhoun v. CIF, no. 3:25-cv-04603 (external source, opens in a new tab), filed in the Northern District of California. The federation's opening move was to claim it was effectively an arm of the state, wrapped in Eleventh Amendment immunity. Beeler rejected that in the order itself (external source, opens in a new tab), casting the CIF as a "voluntary private association" rather than a government body — a threshold finding that keeps it exposed to antitrust law at all.

She then sorted the challenged rules into two piles. On amateurism caps and transfer penalties, the federation prevailed: Beeler held those shielded by so-called state-action immunity, reasoning that California's Education Code signals lawmakers meant to tolerate limits on competition in order to protect amateurism and keep the focus on school. The transfer bylaw that forced Calhoun to sit — he switched from El Cerrito High to Pittsburg High mid-career, both in Contra Costa County — is, for now, legally safe.

The NIL claim came out the other way. Beeler found no evidence in the record that state lawmakers ever meant to strip athletes of earnings tied to their school identity, so the immunity doctrine did not reach that bylaw, and the claim lived. The imbalance Calhoun is attacking is concrete: media partners — PlayOn! Sports and its MaxPreps and NFHS Network brands, plus Playfly, SBLive and Spectrum SportsNet, all named as defendants when the suit was filed in 2025 (external source, opens in a new tab) — can broadcast and sell a quarterback's highlight reel in his school jersey, while the quarterback himself cannot use that same footage to land a local sponsorship.

So why is the case out again? Not on the merits. Beeler had cut the media companies loose in January, finding in her order (external source, opens in a new tab) that they "merely entered into contracts with CIF defendants" rather than joining any conspiracy — a dismissal the defense firm for Playfly publicly claimed as a win (external source, opens in a new tab). She pointed to two pleading gaps Calhoun still had to close: a wobbly definition of the relevant market — she doubted a California high schooler's NIL is really distinct from an out-of-state athlete's — and his own lack of standing to seek an injunction, since he has aged out of high school. He amended once. The August order says he hasn't yet cleared those bars.

Whether that is fixable or fatal depends on whether Calhoun's lawyers can put a current California high school athlete on the complaint and define a market a judge will accept. What the ruling is not is a decision that the state may permanently wall its teenagers off from their own name and likeness. That question is still open — and for the students under CIF's jurisdiction, it's the one worth watching past September 10.