Tuesday’s decision by the Supreme Court to not accept the NFL’s petition for appeal in the Brian Flores case means that all of his claims will be decided in court, not in arbitration.
And Flores recently added some new factual allegations to the various legal theories raised in his four-year-old litigation against the league and various teams.
In the third amendment to his initial civil complaint, Flores has added specific allegations of retaliation against the NFL.
The 483-paragraph, 106-page document includes at paragraphs 298 through 312 allegations that the NFL has retaliated against Flores since the filing of his initial lawsuit.
“Despite it being widely understood by the public and sports media that Mr. Flores should be considered one of the elite Head Coach candidates, Mr. Flores has not been offered a Head Coach job since starting this lawsuit,” the new complaint alleges at paragraph 311.
From paragraph 312 of the new complaint: “The NFL teams’ failure to hire Mr. Flores is consistent with an NFL Head Coach hiring process that is [sic] has for decades treated Black candidates disparately to white candidates and led to significantly disparate impact. It is also consistent with a culture of retaliation in which NFL teams close ranks against those who raise complaints of discrimination.”
The new factual allegations did not result in an additional cause of action; the existing lawsuit already includes multiple specific claims for retaliation.
As to the concept of retaliation based on the failure of teams to hire Flores as its head coach, the current complaint lists only one team — the Texans. In 2022, Houston made Flores one of three finalists for the job (along with Josh McCown and Jonathan Gannon) before hiring Lovie Smith instead. Flores claims that the decision to not hire him was motivated by the filing of his lawsuit against the NFL and multiple teams.
Although no specific other teams have been accused of failing to hire Flores in retaliation for filing and pursuing his lawsuit, the discovery process could lead to evidence that would support a finding that Flores was not given proper consideration by one or more teams with vacancies during the 2023, 2024, 2025, and/or 2026 hiring cycles.
The contention that the NFL maintains a “culture of retaliation” shows that Flores suspects his failure to get more interviews and/or any offers resulted from retaliation. Time will tell whether other specific teams are added to the case as defendants.
Flores’s current claims target the Dolphins, Texans, Broncos, and Giants. (His co-plaintiffs, Steve Wilks and Ray Horton, have sued the Cardinals and Titans, respectively.)
Obviously, Flores won’t be able to force any team to hire him. His aggressive legal arguments won’t make that any easier. Throughout the litigation, however, he has chosen doing what he believes is right over what would be expedient for his career.
And so he’ll continue to serve as Minnesota’s defensive coordinator, while waiting for a head-coaching opportunity that may never materialize. In the end, the NFL and/or specific teams could be on the wrong end of a verdict that requires them to pay Flores as if he has been a head coach since 2022.
Even if Flores never becomes a head coach again.
The Cardinals have received trade calls about Pro Bowl defensive end Josh Sweat, according to Jordan Schultz of The Schultz Report.
Sweat has not attended the Cardinals’ voluntary offseason program.
The Cardinals signed Sweat to a four-year, $76.4 million deal in the 2025 offseason, reuniting him with Jonathan Gannon. Gannon, who was the Eagles’ defensive coordinator in 2021-22 when Sweat was in Philadelphia, was fired by the Cardinals after last season.
Sweat set a career-high with 12 sacks in his first season in Arizona. He has 55 sacks in eight seasons, along with 114 quarterback hits.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court declined to accept the NFL’s appeal in the case brought by Vikings defensive coordinator Brian Flores (and Steve Wilks and Ray Horton). The decision allows his case to proceed in court — and, in theory, to culminate with a public trial.
Both sides have issued comments in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s ruling.
“We respect the Supreme Court’s decision not to grant review,” a league spokesperson said. “Regardless of the forum, we are fully prepared to defend ourselves as this matter proceeds.”
Said Flores’s lawyers: “We are pleased that the Supreme Court declined to accept the NFL’s appeal. The NFL must now accept that its commissioner cannot be the arbitrator over discrimination claims against the league and its teams. We look forward to litigating these claims in court.”
Obviously, the league wants the forum to be its in-house arbitration process. It keeps things secret, and it tips the scales of justice in the league’s favor.
But, no, the NFL won’t suddenly surrender. It will aggressively challenge Flores at every turn, with the goal of securing a victory without having to take the case to trial.
When will that happen? It could take months. Maybe years. After all, it took nearly 52 months to get the case past the threshold question of whether the claims will be resolved in court or in arbitration.
The NFL’s in-house arbitration process isn’t dead, but it’s on the verge of a TKO.
On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the NFL’s petition for appeal in the Brian Flores case.
From the 25-page document submitted by the league in January 2026, this is the question the NFL presented to the U.S. Supreme Court: “Whether an arbitration agreement governing disputes in a professional sports league is categorically unenforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act because it designates the league commissioner as the default arbitrator and permits the commissioner to develop arbitral procedures.”
The league wisely made the question narrow, in order to avoid the possibility that the league’s arbitration process would be taken to its logical extreme. If the NFL can make the Commissioner the default arbitrator for any employment disputes or other legal claims made by employees, every American corporation could make the CEO the default arbitrator for any employment disputes or other legal claims made against it by its employee.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit had found that the NFL’s arbitration agreement was not enforceable due to the Commissioner’s power over the process. The decision not to take the appeal doesn’t operate as an agreement by the Supreme Court; however, if the Supreme Court wanted to endorse the league’s longstanding in-house process, it could have taken up the case and then reversed the outcome.
The current legal posture doesn’t prevent the NFL from arguing its position in cases that arise in other courts. However, there’s now a clear path to suing the NFL and avoiding the mandatory arbitration clauses in non-player employment contracts by suing the NFL in New York federal court — since the Southern District of New York falls within the Second Circuit.
As to Flores, the development means that his claims against the NFL, Dolphins, Broncos, Giants, and Texans (and the claims made by Steve Wilks against the Cardinals and Ray Horton against the Titans) will be resolved by the judicial process. With full discovery. And, absent a settlement or a successful motion for summary judgment, with a trial in open court. All facts will be introduced and developed and exposed to public scrutiny.
That could spark a settlement, sooner than later. The league uses arbitration due in part to its desire to keep its business secret. Unless it goes away, the Flores case could result in all sorts of things the NFL would rather us not know playing out in the public eye.
Jacoby Brissett has not attended any of the Cardinals’ voluntary offseason program as he waits for a reworked contract for this season.
Josh Weinfuss of ESPN reports that Brissett and the Cardinals are “significantly” far apart in negotiations.
The quarterback is entering the second year of a two-year deal he signed in March 2025. He is scheduled to make $4.88 million in 2026, with a max value of $5.39 million, but only $1.5 million is guaranteed. Gardner Minshew, who was signed as a free agent in March, has $5.14 million guaranteed for this season.
Earlier this offseason, Weinfuss reported that the Cardinals informed Brissett he was their starting quarterback. But the Cardinals have a new head coach and a new offense, and it’s unclear to what extent Brissett’s absence will hurt him in the competition for the starting job.
Cardinals coach Mike LaFleur downplayed Brissett’s absence earlier this week, saying that Brissett has “done probably everything we’ve ever done schematically.”
Arizona will hold a mandatory minicamp on June 8-10, which will cost Brissett a fine of $107,911 if he misses all three days.
Brissett started 12 games for the Cardinals last season, completing 64.9 percent of his passes for 3,366 yards with 23 touchdowns and eight interceptions. The Cardinals went 1-11 in his starts.
