District Court Judge Joe Hardy Jr. refused to impose a stay pending appeal on his denial of the NFL's request for anti-SLAPP dismissal, citing non-compliance with laws that would have automatically triggered suspension of the proceedings. Judge Hardy scheduled the matter for a five-week civil jury trial to begin May 24, 2027. Separately, Judge Hardy ordered that the issue of attorney fees and costs would be held in abeyance. The NFL filed an opening brief arguing that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to extend the filing deadline. They contend that they reasonably delayed filing the anti-SLAPP motion because litigating the merits of Gruden’s claims could have been considered inconsistent with their demand for arbitration. They argue that they acted diligently by filing the motion on the same day the arbitration appeal formally concluded. The NFL also maintain that Gruden was not materially prejudiced because of the stay in the underlying case during most of the arbitration appeal. On the merits, the NFL and Goodell argue that all of Gruden’s claims arise from the alleged disclosure of his emails to the national media. They contend that communications to the press concerning a prominent NFL coach, the Raiders, and issues involving race, gender, and sexual orientation qualify as speech concerning matters of public interest. They further argued that the emails were Gruden’s authentic communications, and that disclosing truthful information cannot support his intentional-interference claims. The NFL also contends it did not owe Gruden a legal duty to maintain the confidentiality of emails he sent to others, and that Gruden has not presented evidence establishing that the NFL was the source of the disclosures. Gruden responded with an answering brief, arguing that the district court acted within its discretion in enforcing the statutory filing deadline. He contends that the NFL parties deliberately chose to pursue arbitration first and that this litigation strategy does not constitute good cause for filing an anti-SLAPP motion years late. Gruden notes that the NFL parties filed an ordinary motion to dismiss addressing the merits of his claims at the same time they sought arbitration. He argues that this undermines their claim that filing an anti-SLAPP motion would have placed their arbitration rights at risk. Gruden also raises a jurisdictional argument. NRS 41.670(4) permits an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a special motion to dismiss “filed pursuant to NRS 41.660.” Gruden argues that an untimely motion filed without good cause is not a motion filed pursuant to NRS 41.660 and therefore cannot support an immediate statutory appeal. On the merits, Gruden argues that his lawsuit is not limited to the publication of his emails. He maintains that his claims also concern private communications between the NFL and the Raiders, threats of additional disclosures, and pressure placed on the Raiders to terminate him. Gruden further contends that the NFL parties cannot deny making the communications while simultaneously proving that those communications were truthful and made in good faith. He relies on Nevada cases requiring an anti-SLAPP movant to present evidence supporting the truth or good-faith nature of the challenged statements. He also disputes the NFL parties’ characterization of the emails as matters of public concern. Gruden argues that private emails do not become matters of public interest merely because someone provides them to a newspaper. Gruden asks the Supreme Court to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction or affirm the district court’s order.

District Court Judge Joe Hardy denied the anti-SLAPP motion without prejudice. The court first found the motion untimely, calculating that it was filed 1,337 days after the statutory deadline—or at least 275 days late if the period during which the case was stayed was excluded, ruling that the NFL parties failed to establish good cause for the delay. Although they argued that filing an anti-SLAPP motion could have jeopardized their arbitration rights, they cited no authority establishing such a risk. The court also determined that they had not acted diligently because they did not file a protective anti-SLAPP motion, request an extension, seek to toll the deadline, or otherwise indicate that they intended to pursue anti-SLAPP relief until October 2025. All avenues for dismissal having failed, the NFL defendants formally answered Gruden's lawsuit, denying all substantive allegations.

The Supreme Court, en banc, in a 5–2 decision, vindicated Senior Judge Nancy Allf in discarding an appellate panel's order reversing it, instead affirming her refusal to allow the NFL to remove the case to private arbitration. The majority reasoned that the NFL Constitution’s arbitration provision did not apply to Gruden as a former employee and also found the provision unconscionable because the NFL could modify its terms. Also problematic was the reality that Commissioner Goodell—a defendant accused of participating in the alleged misconduct—could serve as arbitrator. It was also determined that the NFL could not enforce the arbitration clause in Gruden’s Raiders employment contract because they were not parties to that agreement and equitable estoppel did not apply. The NFL responded with a petition for rehearing, which was summarily denied. On the same day the remittitur issued, the NFL filed anti-SLAPP special motion to dismiss. Under NRS 41.660, an anti-SLAPP motion ordinarily must be filed within 60 days after service of the complaint. A district court may extend that period upon a showing of good cause. Gruden argued that the motion was untimely because the NFL parties filed it years after they were served with his complaint The NFL parties responded that they had good cause to delay the motion while litigating whether the case belonged in arbitration.

The Supreme Court has reversed District Court Judge Nancy Allf's order denying the NFL's request to remove the case to private arbitration. Jon Gruden responded by challenging the panel of justices with a petition for rehearing, which was summarily denied. Gruden petitioned for en banc reconsideration. Mr. Gruden then filed a petition for en banc reconsideration, which the Supreme Court entertained.

District Court Judge Nancy Allf entered a final written order consistent with her oral pronouncement from the bench refusing to stay proceedings. The Supreme Court countermanded, granting a stay which effectively prevented Gruden’s lawsuit from moving forward. The Supreme Court also removed the case from the settlement program, and the parties submitted briefs addressing whether Gruden’s employment agreement with the Raiders and the NFL Constitution required arbitration.

District Court Judge Nancy Allf entered a formal written order refusing to compel arbitration. In response, the NFL filed an appeal. Separately, the NFL requested a stay of proceedings pending a decision from the Supreme Court, which Gruden opposed. Judge Allf scheduled oral arguments on the issue for October 20, 2022 at 2:00 p.m.

Jon Gruden filed the underlying lawsuit against the NFL and Goodell in November 2021, approximately one month after resigning as head coach of the Las Vegas Raiders. Gruden alleges that the NFL obtained his private emails during its investigation of workplace misconduct involving the Washington Football Team. According to his complaint, the NFL selectively disclosed some of those emails to the Wall Street Journal and New York Times. Published reports described Gruden's emails as racist, misogynistic, and homophobic. The NFL denied leaking Gruden’s emails and asked District Court Judge Nancy Allf to remove the case from the public courts and arbitrate the dispute privately. In a separate motion, the NFL urged dismissal, on the basis that Gruden's claims were legally deficient. Gruden opposed, arguing that the arbitration provisions were unconscionable and asserting that allegations entitle him to relief because at this early juncture they must be presumed true. Judge Allf also approved Our Nevada Judges, Inc., Inc.'s request to provide comprehensive electronic coverage of the proceedings.