So, a couple of thoughts.   Getting a temporary injunction is not necessarily the hardest thing in the world to do because, typically, the party seeking the relief goes into court ex parte (meaning that the other party usually isn't even there).  They get to make thier argument and if they meet the requirements, the court will grant the temporary injunction and then set a hearing to determine whether the relief sought is appropriate.  At this second hearing, the 'other party' is present and has the opportunity to argue their position.  From the judge's standpoint, if you grant the motion for temporary injunction, that allows the process to play out.  If you deny the initial motion, the case is over.   Many times, a court will grant the initial motion simply to give both parties the opportunity to be heard.  My guess is that this is what the judge just did.   From the article, it appears that the FHSAA has filed a response, including a motion challenging virtually every aspect of the plaintiff's case, including venue (i.e., where the case should be heard . . . I'm pretty sure that FHSAA rules require any litigation to be filed in Alachua County).    I find the timing to be very interesting.   If what I read is accurate, the FHSAA made their decision almost a year ago.  Certainly, anyone with a right to challenge that decision could have done so long before now.  It's almost like First Academy and their lawyers intentionally waited until the last minute to file their lawsuit/motion for temporary injunction.  Perhaps that was smart, but it could also come back to bite them.   I think the biggest hurdle that the plaintiffs have is what is called "standing."  That is, do the players who filed the lawsuit have the right to bring an action against the FHSAA.  Obviously, the players are not members of the FHSAA and arguably they cannot challenge a ruling by the FHSAA against a member school.  So, while First Academy likely would have standing to challenge the FHSAA's decision (although, as mentioned above, they may have waited too long), it is questionable whether an athlete at the member school has the right to challenge the decision as it relates to the school's punishment (and not punishment against an individual player).   I guess this explains why the Class 1A Region 2 quadrant is blank for now.  The FHSAA will wait until the hearing on Monday before they fill that in and we know whether Chaminade-Madonna will play First Academy in the championship game or somebody else.   

Wow imagine being the team that gets left out because these crooks had enough money to buy their way into the playoffs 

Apparently decision will be ruled/made Monday afternoon. First Academy/ parents of the players lawyered up and sued FHSAA. Judge reversed the decision. Seems like FHSAA putting up a lil fight. We'll find out what will happen Monday. So region 2 will have less time to prepare for their matchups in a sense but not really

Pretty much!  

Here's a snippet from the News-Journal: https://www.news-journalonline.com/story/sports/high-school/football/2025/11/06/first-academy-fhsaa-football-playoffs-postseason-ban-judge-orlando/87104708007/ The FHSAA confirmed to the USA TODAY Florida Network on Oct. 24 that it received the letter and had sent it to its legal counsel. Leonard Ireland Jr., the FHSAA's general counsel, responded on Oct. 28, saying that Damon is unable to alter or amend The First Academy's sanctions. "The issues you raise regarding The First Academy Football Program were decided on appeal by the FHSAA Board of Directors," Ireland wrote. "According to the FHSAA Bylaws that decision is final."