Judge nullifies Tom Brady DeflateGate suspension

NEW YORK — A federal judge has ruled in favor of New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady and the NFL Players Association in the Deflategate case, effectively vacating the Super Bowl MVP's four-game suspension.

Judge Richard M. Berman vacated the arbitration by NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell in his opinion filed Thursday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Berman cited three grounds in making his decision.

"The Award is premised upon several significant legal deficiencies, including (A) inadequate notice to Brady of both his potential discipline (four-game suspension) and his alleged misconduct; (B) denial of the opportunity for Brady to examine one of two lead investigators, namely NFL Executive Vice President and General Counsel Jeff Pash; and (C) denial of equal access to investigative files, including witness interview notes," the filing read.

PDF:Read Judge Berman's decision

The NFL now has the option to challenge Berman's decision, through the 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.

Berman's ruling accepted the union's argument that Brady had no notice that a "general awareness" of misconduct by others could lead to discipline. That was the basis of the original suspension levied by NFL senior vice president Troy Vincent, but Goodell determined in his arbitration award that Brady had participated in "a scheme to tamper with footballs."

"With respect to 'general awareness' of others' misconduct — which is the principal finding in both the Wells Report and the Vincent Letter — Brady had no notice that such conduct was prohibited, or any reasonable certainty of potential discipline stemming from such conduct," Berman wrote. "The Court concludes that, as a matter of law, no NFL policy or precedent notifies players that they may be disciplined (much less suspended) for general awareness of misconduct by others. And, it does not appear that the NFL has ever, prior to this case, sought to punish players for such an alleged violation."

The NFL had argued that precedent-setting decisions like those in the case of Ray Rice and Adrian Peterson did not apply here because Goodell relied on Article 46 to uphold Brady's suspension.

Berman rejected that argument, saying that while domestic violence incidents like those at issue in Rice and Peterson's cases could be deemed conduct detrimental, they were disciplined under a specific policy.

"Goodell's reliance on notice of broad CBA 'conduct detrimental' policy — as opposed to specific Player Policies regarding equipment violations — to impose discipline on Brady is legally misplaced."

Brady is eligible to return to team activities immediately and to play in the season opening kickoff game against the Pittsburgh Steelers Sept. 10.

One main issue Judge Berman took with the NFL's case was its stance that Brady's four-game discipline should be compared to suspensions doled out for violations of the NFL's Policy on Anabolic Steroids and Related Substances. Berman dismissed that notion.

"The Court finds that no player alleged or found to have had a general awareness of the inappropriate ball deflation activities of others or who allegedly schemed with others to let air out of footballs in a championship game and also had not cooperated in an ensuing investigation, reasonably could be on notice that their discipline would (or should) be the same as applied to a player who violated the NFL Policy on Anabolic Steroids and Related Substances," Berman wrote. "Brady had no such notice."

One of the NFLPA's central claims in this case was that Pash — who had the authority to edit the Ted Wells report that was used as basis for Brady's discipline — was not made available for testimony in Brady's June 23 appeal. The union used that argument to make the case that the NFL overstepped its bounds in Brady's arbitration process.

"The Court finds that Commissioner Goodell's denial of Brady's motion to compel the testimony of Mr. Pash was fundamentally unfair," Berman wrote. "Given Mr. Pash's very senior position in the NFL, his role as Executive Vice President and General Counsel, and his designation as co-lead investigator with Ted Wells, it is logical that he would have valuable insight into the course and outcome of the Investigation and into the drafting and content of the Wells Report."

Should the league file an appeal to the 2nd Circuit, it could seek a stay of Judge Berman's decision. In effect, the NFL would be asking the court to uphold the suspension while it appeals. It would need to first seek a stay from Berman before asking for one from the 2nd Circuit.

Lawyers interviewed by USA TODAY Sports before the ruling agreed the NFL would have a more difficult time obtaining a stay than Brady would have had Berman ruled against him. The party seeking a stay must show a strong likelihood of success, irreparable injury in the absence of a stay, absence of substantial injury to the party opposing the stay and the public interest.

Berman's ruling comes three days after both parties met in court Monday in a last-ditch attempt to settle the case. Both Brady and NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell were present for Monday's hearing, which included a private settlement conference between both sides that lasted 41 minutes.

"I have no qualms with either party in their efforts," Berman said Monday. "The parties tried quite hard. Sometimes, settlements just don't happen."

Brady's four-game suspension originated from an investigation by Wells, and NFL-appointed attorney, who that found Brady was "at least generally aware" of the alleged intentional deflation of footballs prior to January's AFC Championship Game.

Brady appealed the decision June 23 in a hearing that lasted more than 10 hours. Goodell sat in as the hearing officer in Brady's case, invoking Article 46 of the collective bargaining agreement, which allows the commissioner to preside over appeals "at his discretion."

Goodell upheld Brady's suspension July 28 in a 20-page decision, in which he stated that Brady "participated in a scheme to tamper" with the game balls in the AFC title game, based on the evidence collected by Wells.

The league had asked the court to confirm the discipline, citing language in the CBA.